governors of tennessee, and >> blue ridge arsenal, mr. curtis, thank you. wisconsin on in the event from politico. host: emily miller is also out at blue ridge. later, "washington journal." >> the book includes a link and monica brady said cch stands for trying to get a job with a concealed carry handgun. chapter called the comment at emily had two out of three. the end of the world. at this time there is a talk of anything the would like to a meteoric, destroying the respond to? -- you would like to respond to? earth. one of linkedin's france is guest: i could not hear mr. curtis. certain it will happen. lincoln chides him about it 12 years later. but he is trying to get this host: patrick, you are on. job, commissioner of the general emily miller is our guest. law office and he failed. it is a good thing he fails. caller: i had a question about he is there as a bureaucrat, he is not an illinois signing the -- all of the talking about republican party there. he is not the nominee for limiting magazines, would that senate. he probably never becomes be applicable to the president. at the time he was depressed and government? he got passed over.

if 10 rounds is good for the he thought it was the end of his average american citizen, shouldn't it be good enough for career. as we all know, his story had the government? something better in store for guest: it is a very good point. mr. langdon better down the road. he leaves washington as a one- term congressman. yes, if the government thinks 10 his future in doubt heading back to illinois as if nothing ever rounds is plenty a person needs to defend themselves, it should be plenty for a law happened. >> abraham lincoln arrived in enforcement. washington in 1847. one company said it would no the reasons for his quick longer sell firearms for that departure part of "book tv." exact reason. yesterday, the head of cyber security efforts outlined the goals of president obama's if you think that is all you need, we are not giving them to executive order. he spoke at a conference. law enforcement anyway. this ten round thing is so arbitrary. this is 25 minutes. the average person has four rounds go off. it is not based on anything >> hello. scientifically. that is why new york came up with seven recently. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce the doctor today.

he is the senior director for cyber security on the national security staff at the white it also makes no sense, we have criminals on the street. house. he has developed national and all you have to do is change the magazine. they will not be switching out foreign policy and coordinates 13-round magazines for 10-round the sever security efforts of ones. the federal executive branch. obviously. he has several roles including leading the efforts to develop but even if they change the the national strategy for a magazine, i can change a magazine in two seconds. trusted identity is in cyberspace. and the is very well rounded. it only takes the press of a he has worked in roles at the age s, an essay, and the button and put the new one and. it does not change how many rounds you will get off. department of state. he has a ph.d. in computer science from the university of cambridge. host: family, did you bring your gun with you to blue ridge? guest: i did not, i did not realize there was a range he has a bs in computer science here. i definitely would have brought from georgia tech. mine. and the has operational technical, and policy i will probably rent a gun and experience. please welcome dr. andy.

bea little bit late to work. host: if you were caught with the gun in your car, what is the penalty? guest: there is a federal transport law that applies to >> i am definitely telling my all states. even if states have more mother i am well rounded. restrictive laws, they do not supersede the federal law of i do want to emphasize to use transport. as long as it is not loaded the e-mail address to any questions. easy questions will be great. between any place you can i found out what i was doing, i legally carry and possess. contacted my staff and tell them in my case, i can only legally carry an possess it in my to have some softballs. home. i hopefully i will have easy as long as it is not loaded and questions. i greatly appreciate the con -- unlocked, -- and locked, i can the introduction. is a pleasure to follow suzanne. go to their range. if i stop to get gas or eat, i she lit up the groundwork for can. how we have to integrate cyber security and physical protection with infrastructure. states like new jersey and new conceptually, we have all york have their own interpretations of it. understood that for a long time. it is unfortunate because i have for the past five or six years done stories of veterans illegally transporting their of cyber security has received a guns and local jurisdictions spotlight. don't know the federal law and i think we have reverted to the

people spend the night in jail state we need to be in where it and have legal fees before it is is integrated and appreciated in thrown out. the same context. the release of ppd 21. what the federal law is, gun owners might want to print that out with them. i would not speak in any detail as long as it is not loaded and on that other than to tell you as suzanne did, that is the locked, you can go between places. integrating framework that directs the government effort if i were to walk outside my and highlights the need to take home and go down the street and it all has its approach to creating infrastructure. used it for any purpose, i would what i really want to talk to face one year in jail and $1,00a you about today is the executive order on cyber security. president obama announced the executive order at the state of the union address. it has occupied a significant portion of my life. it is best to speak freely about it in public. i want to highlight the executive order is critical infrastructure cyber security. sometimes people ask me, they say why do you not talk about

research and development or education? this is an overarching strategy. this is not everything our office is doing. it is the framework which we are approaching critical security with cyber threats. what is the core of the executive order? there are four parts of a i want to highlight. the first as information sharing. the second is private and civil liberties. the december 3 security framework. the fourth is the identity of critical infrastructure. let me walk through each of those in turn. first is information sharing. if permission sharing is complicated for the government. suzanne mention the value and importance we place on hearing from the private sector. also on conversations we hear on cyber security entities. we find the leading companies of their have unique and valuable insights. we are all better off making

sure those and sides with better companies and with the government. we found, however, and some sectors some companies believe there impediments for sharing with the government. they may be concerned about liability, privacy, etc.. we spent the last two years working with the congress trying to develop amongst other activities of permission sharing standards to give people and the private sector the conference a share of furbished with government. executive orders are not magical. they do not suddenly give us power that we do not have. for them to is the authorities that already have, we do not have the ability to offer the kinds of things like liability protection that we hear from the private sector. what have we done in the executive order? what do we do and eggs -- the sharing?

would focus on the government executive sharing out parsed. we do that through three ways. i am really into lists. you will hear a bunch of numbered lists after this conversation because i am well rounded. first is clearances. we hear time and again from people with critical infrastructure. we need more clearances. we have one prison and a company with the clarence. they receive a thread never mentioned but does not have the ability to respond to the affirmation. correspondingly the operations could give the granular ever mission but we lack the picture. while ago was speaking out about we heard that loud and clear. the executive director reports getting guns across state lines. to prioritize and increase clearances and critical infrastructure. now, we had a program for during that and it was on hiatus for i know he probably doesn't one year and a half. deserve one, but how does he that was four lots of protect himself? you said a convicted felon should not have a gun, ever. bureaucratic reasons, which we

host: we have a lot on the have recently conquered. we have directed them to really table, what is your response to emphasize this. the coat caller? the people in this room realize differences are critical and a guest: i was just saying that as sister but they do not scale. if you look at the critical ever a society, convicted felons lose structure across the u.s., there their constitutional right to is no way we can give a bear arms. clearance to everyone who wants i just don't see that changing. to understand cyber security at it is hard pressed to know what operate to defend the infrastructure. we need to get more clearances, is in the heart of a convicted felon. it is about decisions and the we also need different solutions. the second thing we're doing is consequences to it. to clarify what i said about children, lots of families take we are establishing as policy the ability to manage -- the their kids to the range early. they also teach them to hunt government must dramatically increase the volume, timing as, early. not encouraging families, i just and quality of cyber securities were never mentioned a share don't think you should keep guns with the private sector. a secret. i think by doing that, you keep a curiosity. sharing information about threats is closely tied up to keep your gun locked up, risks of the information. when the share of permission to

explained to them the basic broadly it can lose its value safety. because they chance the point in a safe direction. techniques and the affirmation is no longer useful. if they get curious or break at the same time if he did not share affirmation, it is very into your safe, they will have rarely useful. what we have done here is said, all the safety things in place. as we are doing risk analysis ownerson the gun- on what a pitcher ferguson on the private sector, we need to emphasize and put our finger on line. caller: i am a mother and a the scale and said, we need to emphasize the benefits we will receive and take more risks. grandmother. we think that is the only way we i'm a longtime member of the nra can make progress is to do a better job of hearing the and gun owners of america. private sector. this is the responsibility we as a journalist, have you ever all share. we know the owners and operators seen or heard the documentary cannot respond whether they are "innocence betrayed" or ruth -- informed. "betrayed innocence?" let me go back to the trade off. there is something interesting guest: i have not. about it. host: why? caller: a man called and asked, we have some classified of as law-abiding citizens, you permission about something maybe

specific that an adversary is have a constitutional right to doing. people will be able to detect own and bear firearms and be the activity. our experience has shown that worried about the government low moisture to broadly, are of imposing a threat. a terror -- adversaries learn and modified their behavior. the documentary is absolutely we need other ways of deriving amazing, in that it documents value from our classified information to help protect the private sector. with footage, fax, and truth, the third thing the executive order does is it takes the what has happened in the history program called enhanced several of the civilized world when security services and governments have gone in and establishes a for all critical infrastructure. confiscated firearms and the ability of individuals to this program was in place for the defense industrial base. protect themselves. people may know it as the dead but pilot. guest: there is a long history i will not even go into that and i would love to watch the acronym. documentary. but me explain a little bit and lehman's terms. people in this last year since i have started writing about this base and you are at a issue, what really hits home to you obviously want to protect the perimeter of your base. me are the people that i hear if you have contacted the base that are survivors of the out, and our scenario you have a holocaust, they say the first

thing the nazis did, the first middle party providing for the guard house service and they can knock on the door was to get deal with classified affirmation. your guns and they never the government gives them a classified photographs of a bad guy and says denial of the sky knocked again. into the base. you do not get to see the photograph. you are receiving the whenever there are protection, the guard house will dictatorships, they will take stop by if addressed to enter the base. your guns away from you. we are not receiving the we can talk about self-defense classified a firm message to everybody within the base. and hunting, but the second that is the context around e.c. amendment was written for s. prevention of government tyranny. that is why this objective of the government will work with cyber security providers. the obama administration to get classified threat indicators. rid of guns that came out in an internal justice department they will then offer services to memo, the only way this complete critical of for structure honors and operators. within the services, that will detect them blog malicious background check system will work is if we have a registration for every gun in network activity. it is an entirely voluntary america and every person of america. that is the opposite of what the program. coto press -- founding fathers intended. participate are not as you wish. this is one mechanism by which host: emily miller, her blog we, the government, can take

better privacy and advantage of series is called "emily gets our private of permission. her gun." if >> let me move on to privacy and civil liberties. any time you're talking about sharing for mission with respect to cyber security, you have to be conscious about civil liberties and make sure there are protected. that has been a priority for the administration and it continues to be so. while there are fewer concerns about the executive order because the it is about sharing the ever mention award. we have highlighted the fifth. if i do not insert an acronym every two or 3 minutes it is just not fun. the feds are fair never miss a practice principles that they back to the 1970's when they were developed when dealing with health records. it is essentially -- one of the

principles you want to use one considering privacy with respect to affirmation. within it is and poor and that we have established these as one of the principles that we will follow with respect to sharing affirmation. we want to call attention to that. that is something we have focused on and cyber security. the national strategy was mentioned earlier. that really emphasizes it. that is a core aspect of how we are tackling it and several security. let me move on to the cyber security framework, another part of the executive order. the people in this room understands ever security. our from organizations sophisticated. that puts you a head of most of the people that we are concerned about in the critical infrastructure. what we have found is that unless an organization has a basic level of capability for their differences, there is no amount of reformation sharing we

can do that will make them successful. let's go back to the guardhouse analogy. that works when it is on the road into the base. if you do not know how many roads are going in and out of your base, you cannot put guard houses on them. having a photograph of the bad guy does not to you any good if you have no understanding of the roads entering and exiting your base. that is the sister was only find sometimes in critical ever structure. if permission sharing is a key component of cyber security, but it has to be tightly couple was standards and practices. we call these cyber security hygiene. what we heard from people in the private sector is, we like to work with the national institute

of standards and technology. we are comfortable with this organization. we know they have a collaborative process where we in the private sector can share our experiences and what we have learned and they can help us tenement to standards that are helpful for all of the industry. what we have done in the executive order is we have task miss to work with the private sector and develop a framework. as a framework of standards. there is not one particular standard. it is a collection of standards we think constitutes the course of a security best practices and standards. the we are at the beginning of the process. we have asked to produce a preliminary from work and a final from march and one year. they have already released in are f i, a request for ever mentioned. i encourage everybody to go look at the are f i, talk to the

people and their company who really do the zebra's security operationally and trigger a response. this will only work if we find out from the company's most effective what they are doing and how they are affected it. >> we have a cyber security framework. what are we going to do with that? there are a couple of different approaches here. first, we have regulated critical infrastructure sectors. there are such as that already have a regulator. we have asked for them to take the severs security framework, look at their existing regulation, and said, we are regulations of the center for the answer is yes, great. there is no need to redo any good work already been done including the work at the end of the nrc. on the other hand, if they identify there are gaps, areas where they need several security

regulation to ensure the critical ever structure is protected against threats, the only ask them to propose regulations. if they do that there will follow the normal regulatory process and there will not be any surprises. that is one approach. i think it is worse highlighting the there are developers the show contest. the white house cannot and should not direct them. what we have done is invited independent regulators to follow the same process. there are also plenty of critical infrastructures sectors and critical infrastructure that are not regulated. what we are doing is to create a voluntary program hosted by d. h. as to encourage companies to participate and sunup to implement december security for a market. we have left the program largely undefined right now because it will only succeed if companies wanted to succeed. it will be working with people

and the private sector to develop more fully what the program looks like and what will incentivize them to participate. the furthermore ask, a number of agencies, to examine their caller: our teenagers. authorities and report back on this is ridiculous and den it what they can do to help incentivize participation by the private-sector. acquisition. wasn't the gun it was the baseball bat. it would be something else. perhaps the government can use acquisition authorities to encourage a cyber security from host: a gun owner in, no, was work? at the center and that is one area we do not have the full that a difficult process? authorities that we need. as part of the legislative of proposals we are asking for new caller: it was want for that i would want know what to think about these shootouts incentives when i talk to people host: what do you mean these shootouts? in the private sector about caller: i was given an award this, the also, that sounds great, but please tell me you that literally blew three shots are not creating another committee our body that we have to participate in. and trying to kim women in a

we heard you loud and clear. parking store. i stopped him. we are not creating any new host: are you licensed to carry? organizations or private-public caller: i was licensed a the bodies here. we do not think we need to. time and i gave up my permit and we have sector coordinating moved out of the state. council's that already exist through which the age s and security agencies clabber with critical infrastructure. guest: that is pretty dramatic. we have information sharing and analysis centers for which the government shares of permission. no gun owner i know is ever through which a firm's share looking forward to anything like that but it is was remarkable ever mission with each other and that he was one of the 4,000 a the government. we have a number of different day according to the clinton organizations, specific individuals adores. justice department that do use a how have decided to sell for firearm in self-defense. denies ensure affirmation or work with the government. obviously, he is pretty happy he was able to do so. >> next call comes from alabama. the organizations exist, there is no need for a new organization. i know i have taken a lot of your time and i see people very caller: good morning, sir. slowly cutting and eating. i'm a first time caller. trying to be quiet. appreciate c-span. my comments or issues are is i appreciate that. let me emphasize and closing that the majority of these people are talking about second amendment rights. that we need your help.

they have to realize that the here in the private sector, we second amendment was written years and years ago. need you to participate with us. this process only works and this things do get amended. will only make a difference if the people who we put there to we all work together to control these laws, they are implement it. that means contributing to the being controlled by lobbyists, from mark. you can do that right after the the n.r.a. ena other groups rfi. also. let's see if we can contribute that is participating and councils or in any other to these congressman and other people, who is going to protect organization and your secretary uses to work with the government. us instead of doing what they want to do. guest: well, i think the caller is making an argument that is government and industry, if we do not integrate all of these frequently made by people who things there is no way we can have questions about the second make progress on this. amendment. let me leave you with that yeah, the second amendment was thought and thank you for your time. i am happy to take questions. written in the 18th century. [applause] so was the first amendment. yes, many years have gone by and firearms have developmented, >> thank you. our first question as regarding technology has changed but we still have rifles and we still the potential risk of the private sector or corporate have handguns, even though there

active suburb defense or perhaps is different technologies even several vigilante as some involved with them. very much the same as the first having the effect on national security and how this is being amendment. addressed with the private- the technology we're using right sector. >> you know, the law in this now, which is protected by the first amendment is something area is pretty clear. unimaginable of the people of the 18 lts century but it is for anybody thinking about cyber protected by the first vigilante is um, i would suggest amendment. even as today's firearms are to talk to some lawyers above the slot. protected by the same second amendment in the bill of rights. host: if you would listen to this video we're going to play -- this lot. i think it says everything that of vice president biden talking is necessary. about the second amendment. we have to be lawful. we would like to get your reaction to it. we have these laws for a reason. please obey them. [video clip] >> you don't have a right to go out and by a m 1 tank. >> the next question is regarding the incentives for private industry endured different calls try to make sure you don't have the right to buy an automatic weapon. those judgments are made that what it might be. are is no reasonable societal what incentive do you do from legislation in order for the justification for owning them. firmer than ever mission so my view is, that it is sharing to be successful?

have you found any through the different private programs to be totally a guarantee not successful at the date? >> i will not go into specifics. negotiable that i'm able to own a weapon for sporting purposes it is the beginning of a as well as my own protection. conference. we have been very clear about but there should be rational the things that we need an limits on the type of weapon i legislation. we need a comprehensive suite of can own that exceed the need different things. that goes beyond for my i will not go into more detail than that. protection or sporting activity. that is another area we would love to hear from the private sector. host: larry? what can we do to encourage you guest: the vice president has to share? i think it is worth nothing there are sectors that to a good been making a number of statements on firearms. job of sharing and for mission between and amongst themselves perhaps the most recent involved and with the government. his opinion that a shotgun is not every sect or a feels there easier for a woman to handle are impediments to sharing information. if you're an inspector that than an ar15. maybe feels reluctant to sharing information, one thing we can frankly, that revealed to many do while we encourage the of us the vice president's congress to provide legislation, complete ignorance of shotguns one thing we can do is and ar15's. a shotgun is more difficult to

communicate those sharing fire and to hold and with stand affirmation carry >> can go into its recoil. for the vice president to more specifics about what will suggest that a woman would be be influenced because of the better off using a shotgun than executive order? an ar-15 shows that he doesn't what might result from the executive order? >> hopefully, a lot of change. know what he's talking about. the same thing with his statement there on the second amendment. yes, the founders had limited on the information sharing side, view of what kind of firearms or we will see more clearances. what kind of arms were covered we will see more sharing of information. part of our task to the by the second amendment. different relevant departments and agencies is also to create a their view was every man should system and process to track how have military age -- of military much of permission we are sharing so that we can manage that and hold as departments and age, should have a military rifle like the m-16 today own it agencies accountable for jury more ever mission. with the ec as, i hope we see is personally and be required to bring it with him if he is a vibrant service operating that called up for militia duty. is taken up by critical affirmation. they find it valuable will. that was not articulated by the with respect to the cyber vice president but it was security framework, i think we protection against government. may see some of bidding of

maybe because the vice president regulations and regulating is in government service now he critical infrastructure sectors. doesn't like to think about that possibility, but that is what what we think we will see is a vibrant, voluntary severance the second amendment is all about. security program. >> according to the a.t.f. in there are enough runs the recognize the threat. 2011, 6.2 million pistols were appreciate that the risks to them may not be a short-term sold in the u.s. risk. it may be longer term care is a 2.3 million rifles, 872,000 significant risk, nonetheless. shotguns and 573,000 revolvers. something i covered less because suzanne mentioned it, we will also see an updated larry pratt is our guest. by the way, the national rifle understanding of what constitutes critical infrastructure was ever security association was invivetted to threats. i think she highlighted how participate in this program and previously some sectors have they declined. blue ridge arsenal is our base taken an approach that focused on physical threats and we need this morning in virginia for the to understand -- we need to next couple of hours. update so we take into account we'll be talking to employees physical and cyber threats. and looking at products and >> one of follow up to your services that blue ridge arsenal comment on the critical for structure. gun shop rage provides as we what measures are you putting in take calls with our guest larry place to improve the cooperation

of the defense and their pratt. we have a call from michigan. inventory of the critical caller: my message and reaction infrastructure? >> part of the from mark that to comments i heard -- i haven't heard anything as far as what lays out is with respect to a given specter, the agencies are has been brought forth yet. why larry, do we not see -- when really the enter a lot better between the agency and the government. we have an overarching role, in a gun was purchased at a -- by a addition to being the agency itself for a number of sectors. when you come to the defense dealer, why do we not see or why industrial base, the department of defense's the agency for the we haven't heard a gun lock be defense industrial base. issued by a federal basis or by people and the industrial base, your relationship with the some means of standard gun lock department of defense and their relationship with you and their program will not change. with the southeasterly number with that particular -- serial number with that gun. >> thank you so much for providing your feet from the top of the hill, so to speak. they open the trunk of a person's car or vehicle and new for us, we appreciate the there's a gun in the back.

it is an ar, it is out of the case. view point. from that perspective, we would you go through the formalities like to share our thanks as well as your participation. and so forth, it is unloaded, and down the road he goes. but what i don't understand is we will be providing a donation in your name to our stem why we don't have a way of traceability if the numbers education fund. you get to walk away with this don't match then the question really wonderful coffee mug. [applause] arises, where is the other gun? >> larry? guest: i'm not sure if i >> on the next "washington understood it. journalists agree -- washington he call was asking about the serial numbers matching with the gun. at journal," jack markell. guns are sold with gun locks on them. i throw mine away when i get home. i put my guns in the safe. it begins saturday at 7:00 if i want to take my gun out of the safe it won't have a gun eastern time. lock on it because that simply impairs its ability to function. in particularly, if i'm some of the governors from

interested in using that gun in around the country. self-defense having a gun lock on them that is the worst idea three governors from tennessee, in the world. connecticut and wisconsin were invited to speak at an event host: have you had to use a gun in self-defense hosted by politico. guest: happily i never had to. this is one hour and a half. host: there were 919.6 million >> we are joined by dan malloy. applications in 2012. kentucky, texas, california, ranked the highest on list for requested screen,. mr. pratt, we were talking to allen earlier about his new study on the a.t.f. to pas the tim they took up would you support changing the carvin gand they carved up rule when it comes to getting rid of the information from nutmegs and all itwas was carved these background within 24 hours? guest: we think that former wood. not a nice term.

congressman had it right and the i do not carve what looks like congress agreed with him in requiring that the government nutmegs and tried to sell them. destroy the record of a background check. thank you for taking the time if they do not, we're not sure today. if they do inspite of his i first would extend condolences efforts, then the government's for the losses they suffered in able to build a registration december. list of who has guns and what i thought would start their because obviously that is the guns they have. most important thing in your registration lists are not a life since mid december. the vice-president -- you use crime-fighting tool. when the background check begun a study was published in the the opportunity to roll out your early part of this century, in own gun proposals. >> it was an unbelievable the "journal of medical association" which is an arm of strategy -- tragedy which i am gun owners and it found that the convinced has a chance the tenure of our discussions about background checks did not have any impact on lowering crime. what to do about gun violence. but we're concerned that the clearly what we want to do is have a safe state. background check does give the government an opportunity to keep that information and that i did roll out a comprehensive is something that was used to list of things i believe should be included and the legislation

confiscate guns in new york a including banning the future sale of assault weapons and few decades ago. it was used to confiscate guns defining them in a way that the nra cannot drive a truck after katrina. through. government government only uses everybody knows what an assault the lists to confiscate guns, weapon is. they don't find it helpful in we were able to go into a fighting crime. connecticut store and buy that >> maverick tweets in, as a gun weapon. the weapon was an assault weapon. owner i don't mind registration nobody would argue the case except that a state where we had or backgrounding checks. my gun is covered by homeowner a weapon did not cover it. property insurance. guest: well, have your firearm we will ended that. covered by one thing that is one we are going to prohibit private thing, that is a preist company. sales unless there is a licensed hopefully, they will respect the privacy of your information but they would need that information dealer involved or somebody who if the gun was stolen or somehow can run the background check. lost to identify as belonging to there are a whole lot of other you if it is recovered. things and there. but for the government to have it is quite comprehensive. that information is another i hope it moves a package it matter. the government is keeping it to sooner than later. fight crime but as we know from obviously there are other things the studies that have been done that will have to be addressed.

it is not useful in fighting crime. i have charged them with other host: how many guns do you own? specifics. guest: i >> at the same time, you want to see federal action, too. it seems like here in washington, the only thing that could get past is an expanded guest: i do not know. host: all right. background check. that would not have stopped -- he got the guns from his mother. out at blue ridge arsenal gunshot and range as our colleague, mr. pedro echevarria. >> we're joined by mark warner, is the federal government a member of the senior sales falling short on gun control? staff. what do you sell here? sure, it is. >> rifles, handguns, revolvers, shotguns. >> how many guns it purchased a day approximately? we had a magazine size limitation. >> probably tell and maybe. in 2004 when it needed to be >> on the counter we have renewed, it was not renewed. something that looks like a rifle, one looks like a pistol. we let a lot of people down as a what are we looking at here? nation. as far as background checks, >> this is an aris style rifle when you go up and down the 95. -- air style rifle. you do it in philadelphia or new york city or hartford and over here is a glock 17 handgun, one of the most standard -- stanford.

commonly bought guns. if you trace it to the last place it can be traced to, it is in florida or virginia, which allows sales that we would never allow. a great fire are to use for people put them in the back of target shooting in competition the car and put them in the back grip. >> the grip, possible stock. of their cars. you can have on our. a grip for shooting like this we do need federal action. or you can go like this for the the lack of federal action cannot be an excuse in my state grip. and what we have been through to we have the third arm magazine. that did this right. >> did the vice president of any >> how does that go in? indication endorsed it about the you said 30 rounds. are there magazines with more? prognosis for federal action? >> 5, 10, 20, 30. did he indicate magazine still a possibility? >> he believes it is a possibility. there is a growing consensus around the issue of background checks on the federal level. i think there is hope -- i think i have seen some that hold 40. some magazines will actually he is hopeful assault weapons hold 100.

>> are there rules and will be limited. regulations that dictate what i think you have it. kind of magazine and sizes you can sell? >> not here. >> on the state level you are >> is this known as the confident that you will get sweeping gun control bill to military-style assault weapon? your desk. >>. i entered the debate because i >> in the civilian world, we wanted to move it in that direction. i think we need to move it in world, ar-15, but yes. that direction. >> it is known as a semi- i did enter the debate as of automatic? round fired. yesterday. i think we will get there. what's on the same topic of >> the various pieces make it a federal and state relations, military-style assault weapon? are there others? march 1 is coming pretty soon. there. that is when automatic cuts will in the u.s., this is the most commonly used military-style go into effect. great fire arm. you have a large base. >> steel. you have contractors surrounding some are made of aluminum. that. some of them are made out of carbon fire, light weight. large federal contractors. what with the impact be of a sequester under state? -- made out of carbon fiber. >> you have to figure out the

>> how many of these types do you sell? republican serving the congress >> we average of 81 or two a are routinely doing everything day. they can to defeat the recovery. -- we average about one or two arecently, it has been a few more. they did it on a crazy debate on >> why is that? >> the talk about controlling whether we would pay our debt. things. they did it in december on a people are buying them faster crazy debate about going over now because they're concerned the cliff, which they did it. about loss been changed. >> what is the cost like? they are doing it again right >> it can go anywhere from $800 now and it will do it again on up to 2500, depending on the the debt question. manufacturer and designer. >> what is the difference in every step of the way, what they the cost? are really doing is taking the >> it is about the manufacture. middle class of america in the teeth. some of the bigger names like having said that, at some point, colt, their quality is a little bit better. you have to figure they will so you'll pay more money. stop putting their hand with the hammer. >> show was the pistol. it is just not working. this is a lot, right? >> what is the actual impact what does that mean? understates? >> that is the manufacturer, >> it is bad. glock. this is the most commonly used gun. 750,000 jobs spread out the

people compete to use it. united states. that is not my estimate or the handgun hunters use them. democrat estimate. it is weather-resistant. simple to operate and maintain. it is the congressional budget office. our share is more heavily weighted towards us. you are going to have to start >> forget the academics, what furloughing national guard. kind of bullhook -- bullets does it should? we have already seen what the >> caliber 45. defense cutback in december did there are conversion kits for to the economy now magnified several times over. them. this is really bad stuff. and less recoil. we are notifying municipalities today of what the impact we >> is this one poll, one shot? believe these cuts will have an >> it is an automatic handgun, their budget. a lot of it comes out of title yes. 1. you have to go through an atf urban education systems rely on background check to get this. that pier request you and the other democratic governors it is more expensive. before you came here this afternoon. did you convey to the president it takes several months to get approved by the atf. a sense of urgency about his once approved, you get an atf role and the sequestered? stamp which allows you to own this type of firearm. >> the president is -- he has a

>> tell us about the magazine. sense of urgency. how much does it hold? i think the president is also >> and where from 10 rounds to frustrated. 17 rounds, depending where it who do you deal with? the speaker cannot cut a deal and go back to his caucus and was produced. this is the 17-round magazine that we use in our rental guns. sell it. mitch mcconnell cannot make a deal and go back and the this model comes was 17-round guarantee sufficient votes. neither one of them are willing capacity. to cut people is to do what they would otherwise do. another one has a 15-room when lindsey gramm and john capacity. mccain are saying that this is really crazy stuff, you know >> he will be talking to us there are people both in the throughout the morning. senate and house that get it and in a little bit, we will see want to avoid this. these guns in action on the range. thank you. anybody on the defense side, host: can you hear me? everybody knows we have to trim our sails. at least we should allow the >> yes. host: when you ask mr. warner secretary to make the decisions as opposed to this crazy across what his personal -- how many the board. >> talking about the budget guns he owns and what kind? issue your state is facing. >> the host in the studio wants you had to raise taxes in your to know how many guns you own. state to meet the budget >> several.

i have never kept count. deficit. i am an avid shooter and a hunter. what is the way ford for governors in this country who i have been doing it for 15 years. i enjoy the sport in the are facing similar scenarios? camaraderie. you raise taxes. and other states that is not >> handguns and rifles? tenable. >> handguns, rifles, shotguns, is that a mix of spending cuts and tax increases? yes. >> give us an example of some of their rifles your own. >> i was the first democrat elected governor and 24 years. >> i own a few m-4 style firearms. i own eight glocks. the outgoing governor handed me a deficit larger than any other i enjoy shooting. >> how did you get into it? >> i grew up hunting and state in the nation representing 17% of revenue. shooting as a kid outdoors. in its summertime, we would there was no way to cut your way out of it. there was no way to tax arena of shoot at soda cans are go hunting. it. you had to do both. i have done our security work, we had to respect the relationship as the employees so i have had a personal and we did both of those things. so much so that and relate -- training. respecting our relationship we have $21.5 billion in savings i got a part-time job selling over a 20 year period of time. combined with the fact the but with this sport and it became a full-time. host: thank you, pedro, live at and generally accepted

blue ridge arsenal gunshot and accounting principles. we will pay an hour obligations range. mr. pratt, do you know offhand how many of the guns we're looking at our american made, earlier the my predecessors had imported, and more? negotiated when they gave away the store. that was it was another $5.8 guest: since i do not have my billion. eye on them, it is hard to say, well in excess of $26 billion but americans have the benefit will be saved over a 20-year of a free market. they can buy guns made here, period of time. yes, we saved taxes by over $1 made from abroad. assembled here but parts made billion per year but we cut more out of the budget. i think a reasonable approach is from abroad. what people have to take. we have got quite an opportunity i think we have to live within to get exactly what we're looking for here. our means. host: this tweet from somebody we will balance the budget. who goes by the innate -- name i have given a plan to balance oversight the gop -- the budget without raising taxes. >> raising taxes, making tough guest: [laughs] well, i think you look at the history of the second amendment, you find that cuts, that does not bode well for approval ratings in your the founders were thinking pretty much of the marina state or any state. slocan today, "every man a are you concerned about 2014

rifle." given what we have had to do -- the founders were thinking there in connecticut? of the marine slogan today. >> i have spent a lot of time they wanted every man to own a thinking about it, frankly. rifle and have it ready for i have a job to do. duty if called up. i do not want to be a politician that is doing things for the short run. but if that person was in the i was lucky enough to have 14 years as a mirror of stanford. militia and belonged to an artillery unit, he was not we did some important work. everyday work onto tomorrow but required to bring artillery well into the future. with him, but he still had to bring his rifle. i think we will get credit at some point for the hard work we the handguns, long guns, but have done and cut through the nothing else but that would be rhetoric that is spewed around that. but speaking of the future, considered military hardware. host: greg is in arlington, education is a passion of yours. you have been a democratic tennessee on our republican governor and as a reformer on line. caller: they always interpret the issue that has caused unease among the ranks of your state. the constitution where it says cut to meet generally about your "well-regulated militia," and experience and also the way ahead for democrats. back in those times i believe you think your party is going to they meant well-trained, like become more invested in you said.

education reform in the last -- two, your guest before larry was asking what they thought gun confiscation would look like. >> i have a lot to say about would it be military or the police, and he kind of laughed this subject. at it. i think arne duncan has done but if you go on youtube and put in gun confiscation during more than any other secretary of education who has ever served. katrina, you will see several i think this administration has taken a lot of very good and videos of them actually going strong positions. into houses, and even injure they are starting to pay off. this one elderly lady by i think democrats have to find a attacking her and taking her way to lead these discussions. pistol out of her hand. there is a certain reality in if anybody would go on there and look at it, it really made america that 90% of our children will be educated and public me sick seeing that in person. education. that is the reality. in a place like connecticut that host: in a response? has very high achievement levels guest: the confiscation was on average, we have the largest made possible by the authorities going to dealers, gap between high achievers and such as this one, going through low achievers. the records that they are required to maintain for the federal government, getting a you get to places like a new list of people who had haven or a hartford or a new purchased firearms, their

london where 40% of the children addresses, with the firearms fail to get out of a -- to get a work, and then they went to high-school diploma, it is those houses and confiscated those guns. related to socio-economic spirit they had no authority for that. they are ultimately lost in if you are opposing that as an federal court. by the time the victory by gun excuse, that is not an excuse. you can draw this a long home owners was achieved the most of ownership plans, racial lines, family income lines, you can the guns had rested because the government of the city of new also draw it along the line that orleans did not give a never quite frankly, we know what mind and left the guns in an exposed condition and in rather works and education. we have enough models of there extreme humidity that they experience there, so the guns that tell us you can educate or ruined. anybody. we are more likely to replicate oh, too bad. host: what statement did gun our failures than our successes. every time there is a success owners of america make after sandy hook? and education people running around trying to explain why that is not applicable. guest: following sandy hook, it is applicable. gun owners of america was we need to replicate those pretty outraged. experiences. >> should teachers be more of a we pointed out that the politicians have to accept some blame for what happened, for partner in this effort? having facilitated what in your experience, they are a happened in sandy hook. pretty fiercely opposed to what all of the mass murders in our you were trying to do. a lot of money against your country in the last 20 years

with one exception have plan. >> in the end, we have a occurred in legally-required gun-free zones. package. we have a package that the secretary described as the most comprehensive single reform these are places where you just are not allowed to legally have package passed in any state. a gun. yes, it was a pretty bad dust and whether it was a mall in utah, whether it was a theater up and some elbows were thrust. in colorado, or whether it was at the end of the day, we got at this school -- typically it has been at schools, that is what we needed them have to where these mass murders implement the heck out of it. occurred. but some ask about your state and one of your neighbors. our response that was let's get i was struck by a piece about -- rid of the laws that require people to be disarmed, he talked to you recently. precisely in places where the mass murders have occurred. he said, al smith, who has not host: harrison, nebraska, good been the emperor of new york, you read the names that were all morning. familiar, you said, new york caller: hello, the thing i would like to say is to make a comment about how good it is to likes to have a per governors. see good professional people working at gun shops all over that does not lie in this country. connecticut. why do you not have a number most of them are just normal governors? >> the. people, not crazy people like they like to be portrayed. i was trying to make, in each the other one i would like to

jurisdiction has a styled are have larry do is explained how comfortable with. fast it took them in australia new york is one of those places and great britain to have full that once big, bold -- i use the gun confiscation in those term emperors'. countries, because it did happen in happened pretty darn quick. >> that is what they want. i am a member of the nra and the gun owners of america and i would like them both to work together on this because this other states do not want that. is one of the more serious >> what does connecticut want? times for gun owners in this country. thank you. >> i do not think the one an emperor. i think for many years there guest: well, gun confiscation were comfortable with governors did occur in both of the who did not try to do a lot. that is what i am trying to countries he mentioned, and it change. was facilitated by the fact i went to -- i do not want to be that when people bought guns, they bought them and everything emperor, but i want to get a lot was registered. done. we had to balance the budget. they bought them from stores where there had to be records we had to take on job growth. kept, both in britain and we needed to take on three k-12 australia. in britain, virtually all guns were confiscated. reform. we needed to reform higher if there were not confiscated, education. we needed to do something about they knew you had one. they would come for it and training and work force and you'd be in legal kind -- trouble. precision manufacturing because in australia, the confiscated we are aging out machinist's all of the semiautomatic

more rapidly than anywhere else. firearms. for all their trouble in we fail to grow jobs at a time britain, while they do have a 23 million jobs or split between lower murder rate than we have in the united states, it is the 24 states. most violent country in world >> for a long time, your state save three. criminals have a field day in which obviously a liberal great britain because they know leaning states and republican that nobody is going to be able governors to hartford. to effectively resist them. you saw the same thing in all they really need is a providence and boston. baseball bat or a tire iron and this happens often in the new they can work their will england. against a disarm the population. that has changed in the last few years. to talk for a minute about the it has not lowered crime, and impact of what that has meant it has made life rather nasty in politically and how the great britain in particular. democratic chief executive -- host: back to the "christian has that created new tensions science monitor" report on guns with the speaker of the house? used to getting his way? in america. 1.8 million rifles manufactured in 2010. >> i think what has happened in connecticut over a period of pistols, 2.25 million in 2010. time as the legislature decided to take out a policy role and an administrative role because never governors who did not like

policy and did not like the a call from birmingham, alabama. biggest reasons. the responsibilities to over that way. you're on the "washington i have been a chief executive journal." larry pratt of gun owners of over 40 years of the city. america is our guest. two years of a governor. are you with us? i know what direction i am moving on to david in oklahoma. trying to lead the state. caller: howdy. is there a conflict? rather habits that the to yes, i have a comment for mr. chance, yes. hopefully i it getting better pratt. first of all, i pat him on the working with them. i think there are getting to know me of a to a bit better. back for what they are trying we also have a five-and -- 5 to do to support gun ownership. natural disasters declared. i have been around guns all my life. i was raised on them. we had the largest per-capita deficit in the nation. and i have never seen a gun get we had the biggest achievement up by itself and walk over and shoot anybody. gap of the nation. we have failed to grow jobs on a and they are climbing this is all about the guns. net basis for 22 years. the guns are not the killers. these are pretty big issues. the people behind the trigger are. >> let's talk politics here. basically, what all this is about is i have been telling people for years that -- and i governors of both parties are here.

am not saying our government is you have some pretty tough the antichrist, but they are things to say about your laying the table down for him. counterparts in the republican party. republicans have more governor i have told people for years now that the antichrist cannot is now than the democrats do. why do you think that is? dictate to a bunch of gun- do you see 2014 as an opportunity for your party to packing free people. where this is going is their correct what happened in 2010 wont as to only be able to throw rocks and bottles when the government comes against when you had a backlash towards the people -- they want us to president obama? >> yes, it certainly represents only able to throw rocks and bottles, but they can throw bullets' back. the opportunity. >> will you take advantage of guest: well, i think the point it? >> hopefully, we will. has to be underscored that, you will have some governors even in the case of the last here later today. mass murder, which is unhappily i think you might want to ask somewhat typical of the kind of person that committed previous them about it. i think it will be a competitive ones, you had somebody that was year. i am sure they will come after involved in video games, and me. perhaps more than the video game itself, that the murderer republicans will come after me. when we think we can pick some up. >> you have mentioned some of apparently had almost no interaction with other people your favor governors previously. whatsoever.

who is your server republican governor? >> i guess i can say this. it was just sort of dead to the you are going to have the rest of the world. governor of tennessee on later. i have a lot of respect for him. maybe part of that is we both barriers. he had paid to set up in four i think he has done some states and, so he was obviously into the occult -- he had a page set up for satan. that is also somewhat typical important work. to hear him talk about -- here for these kinds of people. is a guy who had to implement an so the debate over firearms kind of misses the point that these evaluation system for teachers. sort of person that gets he got it done. >> we would like to take some involved in these terrible questions over the internet. crimes is not very typical of the average american. you do not have too many people not working out too well for me running around with a facebook page for the double -- devil. on this device. host: the number of mass let's do some questions on the audience. anybody have a question they shootings in the u.s. since 2000, 14. would like to ask the governor the number of perpetrators to of connecticut or federal policy? >> [indiscernible] use the high-capacity magazine during an assault, 14. mr. pratt, why no limits on the size of the magazine, how many bullets you can store?

guest: well, and limit on the size of the magazine means that there would be a limit on how much of a self defense you would be able to bring about. and i think that is the part of the equation that gets the desire to have revenue streams coming in. what can you do to encourage the overlooked. again, the clinton justice discussion here? department found that some 4,000 + times a day an american >> i think the president is doing the right thing. i think there are people of good uses of firearms to defend will that would like to resolve himself. typically, the firearm is not the issue and there are the people of the united states. even have to get fired. it is enough for the assailant specifically the house. to realize that, uh-oh, i do not plan on that, and they i am not holding my breath. i will do everything i can. typically fully when they see i hope they will do it on a it. comprehensive basis. but when you're in a situation where your life is being they are unwilling to do it on a threatened, the idea that you comprehensive basis, i hope it should only be able to have six, or new york state, seven will do the common-sense things. rounds, or what ever some when we give a doctorate out of politician may arbitrarily uconn, which to give decide is enough, that is really kind of evil, to tell somebody that your life is over when you run out of bullets and we're

going to tell you what capacity them a green card. magazine you are going to have. it just makes sense. host: albany, kentucky, good we are cutting off our nose to morning. caller: my comment is that 20 spite our face. we do not have the talent we need to grow our economy, yet we're not doing common-sense years ago when i was going things. through high-school, most of i had a debate over one year the kids that i went to school ago with a republican with went hunting early in the congressman from california. he knows we need to do it. morning. they are afraid to have a they had their rifle or shotgun conversation. >> speaking of federal issues with them and would go hunting and then go into school. at no time during my school that certainly impacted states, career did anybody ever consider a mass shooting. the issue of same-sex marriage. i know you are trying to get rid of these gun-free zones. president said he was supportive of more kids or school guards, of the -- >> did -- and then there, done that. we have moved well beyond that. whoever the schools have there, try to access these guns, you in no longer have these mass we took a step toward civil unions as an interim step. i am convinced if we had not done that, the supreme court

shootings. what is your thought on that, would not have said that we had to do something about marriage. sir? we were out in front of this thing. i think we -- i think the supreme court needed to understand the world would not come to an end if you took this guest: we were very pleased that issue on. the representative from near houston, texas introduced into the house of representatives the lieutenant governor who i here in washington hr-35, which get to work with every day, one is a bill that would eliminate of our touch points was years ago that several unions came up the gun-free school zones and make it possible -- it would not require, but it will make it to be considered by the judiciary committee for the possible for principals, first time in the but out a call teachers, ejectors, and visiting parents, if they have a for a municipal leaders as to concealed carry permit, to bring what officeholders to come and a can still carry firearms on to the premises of the school. testify on their behalf. she was the only statewide to show up in the was the only municipal to show up. that would, overnight, change it did not pass that year but the equation that seems to operate in the sick minds of those who have engaged in mass two years later it passed. i think it emboldened the murder. supreme court to say that whether they knew it or not, marriage discrimination was not acceptable. they would be running into the now, and we have codified that. likelihood that, unlike newtown, connecticut where the as soon as i became governor we

murderer had 20 minutes to work passed a gender identities of his will against unarmed all rights bill. >> this case will be taken up teachers and children, he might here. but i think i know how scalia only have a couple of seconds before he is facing return fire. will handle it. host: today we are at blue >> what is your guess? ridge arsenal gunshot and range >> not well. out in chantilly, virginia, in >> i think he is forceful. the outer suburbs of washington, d.c. larry pratt is our guest, executive director of the gun owners of america. later, emily miller of the what is his option? "washington times." she has written a series called >> do you think he will pass it "emily gets her gun." in the congress of the united states today? she will be joining us as well. we will be talking to various members of the staff at blue doma has to be taken up by the ridge, talking about some of the products and services that they supreme court. we have a constitutional right in any other state to have that offer. tomorrow, the brady campaign's recognized. mr. goddard will be on this you cannot discriminate against program, a survivor of the virginia tech shootings. the connecticut prison at -- it resident who is married because what is your opinion of the he did not like that. brady campaign? that is unconstitutional and my opinion. guest: well, the brady campaign i hope the courts have the guts

to say it. thinks that restrictions on if they did not say it, they are firearms are a good idea, and throwing out over 200 years of our message to them is they are our history. not considering self defense. they do not see guns useful in we get to make the rules and our state. you have to honor them and self-defense. we do. recognize them. host: dana tweets -- marriage is a right to. >> i want to ask you about one of your favorite topics, that is 2016. i assume you want to stay in hartford for four more years. guest: a number of states have decided that former felons >> yes, i want to stay in should after they have been hartford. free from any incarceration that i like the job of governor quite they might have been subjected a bit. >> should the next president come from the ranks of to, if they go a number of governors? >> what are you trying to do to years, whenever that might be in me? that state, with a clean record, then, yes, they should i think there are some interesting trends. more mares are getting elected be a protect themselves the way governors. more governors are getting -- anybody else in society does, more governors are smart enough not to run for senators. once they have demonstrated that they're going to be an i hope it works out for upstanding citizen. they should not have a permanent everybody. >> that sounds like you are disability. host: a call from florida on

our gun owners line. ruling out a future senatorial run. what's i tried to move caller: good morning. it is great to see larry pratt on tv. municipality and no estate forward and address some of the i do not have a weapon, per se. big issues. i am working on getting my own. i was on active duty in the i know lots of people who do not marine corps. think i am good at it. i think i am good at it and i am retired now. comfortable at it. >> one of your colleagues and i worked on weapons the whole friends was here this morning who was pretty candid. time in my military career. he said if hillary clinton i saw a lot of things go on runs, if she gets an, issue the during my career. my mom was raped on two defacto nominee? different occasions. >> if she gets an, i am not going to. i had access to a weapon at that time to defend my family. nor am i going to under any circumstances. things did not go as we would have liked. i think there are two really big system says it protect the personalities in the room at the citizens. moment. the vice president and secretary clinton i think both of them that is incorrect based on what i have lived, as victims. will have to make decisions these gun-free zones and the before the field gets finalized

or without the making decisions other things they claim are the field will not get finalized. >> i am just taking the obvious. there to protect us to do not. they do not care, felons. they will find a weapon no matter what. you do not need me to tell you they will purchase is -- they that both of them are capable of will purchase the fromin the running and both of them will have large amounts of support. criminal knows where to go, what we will see what happens. >> you have had interaction with vice president by then. earlier than that, to be a to do, and they can get the weapon. they forget what happened in governor, he worked with governors on the stimulus in germany with the nazis. the same thing is going on right 2009. now. table there. can you talk about vice a response? guest: i was just thinking president biden and what he is like? during his comments that we had >> he is the real thing. a gun-free zone in the district he is an outsized personality of columbia for years, and that who speaks his mind and very plan language that everybody can did not do them much good. understand it. they had one of the highest does it get him in trouble once murder rates of any jurisdiction certainly in the in awhile? yes. has the serve him well? country and pretty much in the world. it obviously has. it has gone down now since the was he an effective vice- gun ban has been ended. still above the national president?

i think so. >> you think 73 would not be too average, probably about twice. interestingly, out in fairfax old for him to be president? county where i am is sitting >> i do not think age is the right now the blue ridge arsenal in chantilly, the murder issue. rate is .3 per 100,000. it is whether he wants to do it. he will have to make that about 30 times that in the decision. it is what the secretary clinton wants to do it. i think we will know who district of columbia. the murder rate here in fairfax otherwise will or will not put county where, as you can see their -- if either of them gets from the gun store you're guns and that it will be a smaller field. if both of them get it, there are readily available here in fairfax county. may only be two. >> a personal privilege, i have we have a lower murder rate than in the country of the united kingdom where almost all guns are banned. been long fascinated by this clearly, the idea that we're topic. where is the red sox-yankees going to make ourselves better off by getting rid of guns does invisible line? not work, as a number of people is it the connecticut river? calling in have already pointed >> it is down in the new haven out. criminals do not obey the law. area. it is probably in new haven. that is sort of the way criminals are. and they will get guns. before we came up, we were the question is, are we going to make it easy or hard for the talking about pizza. good guys to be able to defend ourselves?

those are dividing lines in new haven. i think the dividing line begins host: as mr. pratt mentioned, there. north of there you have a he is joining us from blue ridge majority of people probably red sox fans. arsenal in chantilly, virginia. south of there, the vast and our colleague pedro echevarria is out there as well. >> we are now out in the range majority are yankee fans. of blue ridge arsenal. i am joined by mark warner. tell us about the range. having said that, for the first how is it designed for safety? time in polling two years ago the majority of people in >> rifles and shotguns are used. connecticut said they were we have steel as a backdrop. yankee fans. it limits the amount of >> why has that changed, do you ricochets. think? >> because right minded lethandguns, rifles, and shotguns. individuals -- >> here you go. on the other side, handguns only. >> my wife is from >> we're going to start with a massachusetts. we are a divided household. >> thank you so much for glock. chatting today. we really appreciate it. [applause] go ahead and load it up, get it those watching at home and at ready, and then hand it over to work, we have gov. scott walker from wisconsin and joining us me. we will see what happens. next. tea was so much. we appreciate it.

[inaudible] let's give it a shot. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] good to see you. you just got governor malloy on the way out. >> " up -- close the gap. your counter. nice and firm. -- your counterpart from connecticut. is there any common ground you have? what policy issues d.c. eye to eye on? the trigger. >> i think the idea, let out a [gun shots] number of issues, putting more all right. responsibility in the hands of the states is pretty common ground. there are certain -- i think >> how many bullets? that is pretty common. what's all of the people in this room know who you are. not just because we all love the >> [inaudible] >> that about, what, 22nd? badger state and the great >> 10 seconds. cheese from your state but because obviously what took correct good shot, too. place in madison famously over the issue of public employees

>> load up the rifle. and organized labor. i was struck by the story that again, same thing. get ready to go, hand off to me. the ap moved last month from i will shoot it and then hand it back to him. scott bauer who is the they have serious regulations. correspondent to the capital. he said "scott walker adopting a >> put these on. lower profile." >> i didn't know about that. the issues we have brought up, >> so i will go for it. >> safety off. >> switch it down, right? >> correct. which is brought up an issue as of late, we have number 100,000 target, and you are ready. people into the capital. there are lower profile than two >> ok. [gun shots] years ago. we are pushing forward with reform. we took our budget surplus. we have about half of a billion surplus right now. pour the into income tax cuts. we are pushing reform when it comes to schools and reforming -- we are rewarding public schools and offering a choice. are doing other things in moving people from government dependence. are doing big, bold things. it may not be as high-profile as two years ago. >> safety on.

>> i will hand it back to you. i noticed the recoil. >> the democrats and madison said, he is lower profile >> it is very light. because it was to be reelected in 2014 so he is moving away a little bit from the more brass 83-way caliber rifle would have conservatism that he exhibited more recoil. -- a 3-way rifle. in the first couple of years. >> thank you, again. its 2014 undermined at all? >> and our kids, we are doing what we said we would do. we are actually doing what we host: as we continue our live said we would do. we did it two years ago and we programs from blue ridge are doing enough. arsenal, that was pedro i echevarria shooting the guns. i wish they had brought the target in so we could see his results. larry pratt is still with us out there at blue ridge as well. paul in ohio, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i purchased my most recent fire are and everything went smoothly.

background check went ok. i was asked -- [indiscernible] host: we're going to move on it to dennis in massachusetts, gun owners line. caller: good morning. i am a proud gun owner. i served in the military during vietnam. i believe everyone should carry a gun. if we had more guns in this country, we would be safer. the manufacture it deems that gun 718-run magazine and a 30- run magazine -- have a 18-round magazine. we have to protect ourselves. the police department cannot be there when we need them. i was attacked in my driveway a couple months ago and it took the police department eight minutes to get here after the fact. we need to protect ourselves. thank you very much. keep up the work. host: what kind of weapons do you own?

caller: 3 ar-15's and four handguns and shotguns. i use it for competition. host: what does your hobby cost you per year? caller: i probably spend about $1,000 in gunpowder and primers. i do all my own reloads. host: thank you for calling in. we are out at blue ridge. pedro echevarria is going to show us his targets. let's see how well you did. >> here is the target. here are the shots from the 9 millimeter. these are the shots from the

rifle. i was told the reason why was over to be shut -- shoulder was -- [inaudible] that is just a look at the target. that is what happened with the rifle. host: ken in corona, california. the one with your question or comment for larry pratt, gun owners of america. caller: i own a security guard firm in california and in louisiana. in california, there is a huge problem with the ban on where you -- the gun-free zones. in the east los angeles area, there is a high school that at armed security guards. i was one of them. i worked part time during special events at that school. they have got gangs all around

that area. so all the crime is coming from there and it is in a school zone. the high school is owned by a charter school system. are you familiar with that? host: where are you going with this? caller: they enforce all these laws, yet we, as armed security guards, have had the gunfire area for a long time. we have the fire with our small calibers. we are only allowed to carry 10 rounds in california. so under fire -- given the sheriff's department is under fire, and gunned and unmanned. guest: an interesting comment that the professional security guard is outgunned in a school zone. that tells you something about how poor judgment, to put it

very mildly, many of our legislators have when they tell us that nobody should have a gun at a school. well, that is disinviting the criminal to be the only one with a gun if he wants to engage in this criminal activity -- that is just inviting the criminal, whether it is a mass murderer or a gang banger. it does not affect the behavior of criminals, these gun-free zones. maybe we are coming to the point where we are beginning to see that. hopefully there will be a push back. i think we're beginning to see that. politicians are going to be hearing from people, such as the caller, that you guys got it wrong. we have to get rid of these bans, because they only apply to us good guys. host: larry pratt, you're sitting at the arsenal in blue ridge in chantilly. what kind of process is it for a gunshot like that to get a license?

guest: you have to contact an agent, a bureau, and the justice department to apply for a license. you have to be approved after a background check by the federal government. eventually they would be able to get their license and engage in retail sales. it is only with that license that there would be a byproduct from manufacturers and distributors -- that they would be able to buy products. host: should gun shows and federally licensed dealers be treated the same legislatively? guest: that is a question that is heading toward the background check, in pink, and the background check is something that we know, from studies published in the anti- gun general of the american medical association, do not lower crime. they do not have any utility as a crime-fighting tool.

so we do not think that private sales should, for a minute, be subjected to the kind of background checks that have already been shown to be cute while -- to be few title. guest: is that the only difference legislatively between gun shows and licensed dealers? guest: well, at gun shows, most of the transactions actually are carried out by licensed dealers. there is only a small handful of sales that occur from people who perhaps have their own collection and are selling it off or maybe they are trying to trade and complete a collection by getting a certain firearm that would round out their collection. those are the minority, a strong minority of the transactions that occur at gun shows. most of the sales actually are conducted through licensed dealers.

host: when we talked with alan berlow earlier, he said if somebody came in to buy five or more weapons, then the gun shop has to fill out a special form. is that correct? guest: actually, i think it is 3. in any case, yes, there is a multiple sales requirement that a special report be sent to the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. that means they will actually look at that transaction, whereas they really are not looking at other transactions. host: do you support the multiple sales raising kind of a flag? guest: no, actually, we do not. we do not think that the federal government has a legitimate role in this. it does not been shown that any of this infringement has done anything to fight crime. and if anything, sometimes these approvals are delayed and delayed and delayed.

my name may be similar to somebody else's name, and if the government does not give a clear go-ahead, a lot of dealers will just come out of fear of the reprisals from the federal government, even though it is illegal to go ahead and sell a gun were there was maybe my name was the same except for an initial -- where even though it was legal, they just will not go ahead and make that sale. and people are unnecessarily and improperly denied because of these inadequacies of the background check. so there are problems that people do not hear about which affect probably some 10% of the transactions. host: back to the report on guns in america. gun deaths, rifles versus handguns, at the heart of the current gun-control movement. bill in boca raton, thanks for holding.

caller: it is interesting to listen to you talk. i am a gun owner, and more on the gun control side of things. i watched people like you all the time and infuriates me checking your veracity. you said three things that i understand to be wrong and i wonder what else is just isn't

correct. you explained in the recent mass shootings that there was one exception to gun-free locations. your thesis is that we should have more gun available places but it is clearly not true. the second thing, i don't know where you get your statistics about britain being the third most violent in the world but that is clearly wrong. maybe industrialized country? and the gun shops, background checks having that an effective -- been ineffective. there have been a couple thousand gun sales that have been prohibited over the last few years. >> we will get a response to those points. >> out of those hundred

thousand, there were a few of those, at least one that was effective. >> i own a glock. i can count how many guns i own. i don't know that to be false. host: why do you have a glock? guest: i enjoy target shooting. host: gun free locales? guest: it is a matter of attack whether it is gorgeous theater or this school a new town. they were gun-free zones and the law itself either permitted the owner of the theater to post no guns or the school was required to be a gun-free zone.

as i said earlier, i nfairfax where guns are readily available, the state of virginia makes it fairly easy to get a concealed and carry permit. we have a murder rate that is lower than most countries in the world. england happens to be the fourth most violent country exceeded by health salvador and honduras and i forget the other one. doing away with guns does not make a society civil or a pleasant place to live. host: licensing and background checks? guest: we know that the study that was published, the background check before and after they were in effect did not contribute to a lessening

in crime. i think we have to say that is to their credit because they have a decidedly anti-second amendment editorial policy. people that might be victims being armed. we have locales where people can carry concealed firearms and those are areas where we tend to have lower violent crime rates. in places like the district of columbia where it is virtually impossible, the violent crime rate is quite a bit higher than out here in fairfax county. caller: thank you for c-span.

i am a retired police officer. in what people would call the hood. thousands of times, people with guns were able to defend themselves in violent crimes and protect the people around them. i don't believe american citizens should ever be infringed upon. that is why they call us free. people that are out to remove guns are people that don't understand them, have not witnessed real crime, and i don't know. they just don't trust americans. guest: i think that is a very good point. there is a lack of trust of

those that believe guns only belong in the hands of the government. the country was founded on a different philosophy that guns belong in the hands of the average person. when the british crown embargo the importation of ammunition to the colonies, it was more evidence that they were getting close to cutting the cord with mother britain. host: gary tweets -- referring to an article about people making guns or components on 3d printers. guest: if you make a gun from a 3 the printer, you might be able to fire at once.

possibly the magazine, the multiple-round magazine might be more feasible. it is a new technology with interesting implications for the future of gun-control. if it does develop, it will probably mean gun control needs to be put into the trash can for real and for good. host: larry pratt, you for being on the "washington journal." [video clip] ," we talked to calling got burned. "washingtons

journal," we talked to colin goddard, a survivor of the virginia tech massacre. >> "washington journal" continues. host: today, we focus on the gun issue. we heard from gun rights advocates. today, we want to hear from one of the shooting victims of a virginia tech in 2007, somebody vice-president joe biden that in his hearings in advance of the white house meeting on january 16 with the president's proposals and recommendations on ways to curb a gun violence in the country. the vice president in attendance. [video clip] >> we met with a young man here today -- collin was one of the survivors of the virginia tech massacre. he was in the classroom. he calls himself one of the lucky seven. he will tell you he was shot four times on that day, and he has three bullets inside him. when i asked colin, he said, i am not here because of what

happened to me. i am here because of what happened to me keeps happening to other people. we have to do something about it. colin, we will. colin, i promise you, we will. host: the vice-president last month. we want to welcome colin goddard. let's go back to april 2007. what happened? guest: it was a monday morning, french class. a dreadful power. -- hour. i got a class. things were normal. about halfway through class, another girl in our class came in late. this was one of the students in the class. when she took her seat, which -- we said, what gives? she turned around and said, there was a shooting in my dormitory. the whole building was on lockdown. they would not let anybody come or go.

they finally said, you're free to go. we looked at her like, what? there was a shooting? we have not been told? the school year started with the shooting around blacksburg. the canceled classes pretty quickly. we thought we were ok. it probably wasn't five minutes after that when we heard a loud bang come from somewhere within our building. there were doing construction adjacent to hours all semester, and we heard all sorts of wheeler -- weird noises. seconds later, they got much louder and closer. you could tell it was something in our hallway. immediately as soon as she open the door, she slammed it shut and she said, everybody underneath the desks. somebody call 91. -- 911. i give up my information of where was. i said, i think there is somebody shooting in this hall.

we saw bullets coming through our door. at that point, everybody hit the floor. that was probably the longest 10 minute experience of my life that followed. for me, it felt like ours a constant gunfire. it was after that that i did not see what was going down, but all the sudden, i felt like somebody had kicked me as hard as i have ever been kicked above my left knee. that feeling faded into this burning, stinging sensation that faded into this witness, warmth, and then it went numb from head to toe. it was at that moment when i felt the sensation. i smoked a propellant, which to me, smalt like fireworks. i just realized, i got shot. this is real. the rest of the time is kind of a blur. i was conscious throughout the experience, but i do not quite remember everything six years later. at the end, i knew i had been shot three more times.

twice in my hips, once in my shoulder. the last time i was shot was probably one of the last gunshots i heard. you could tell police entered the building. my phone call was one of the only ones made from the rims with victims. when i left the phone call, a girl right next meet ducks -- picked it up. i expected the police to engage, but they said, shooters down. they began it rehash of the students, try to plot the injured ones. i heard a black hat, black tag. i realize that some of my classmates were dead. they pulled me out, got me into an ambulance, i got to the hospital. our campus was full. they drove me down to roanoke. i spent six days in the

hospital, a couple months in physical therapy, and ultimately went back to virginia tech, just like every injured student. host: what about your french teacher? guest: she was found behind our classroom door. she was probably one of the first ones shot. it was probably the most difficult loss ahead. most of my close friends were sitting next to me, so all seven people in that room 17, we survived. where were located in the back corner of the rim. for my french teacher, she was the first target. host: you then graduated. a couple of years later, you're watching on cnn another shooting that took place in up -- upstate new york. what was your reaction to that? guest: that was almost two years after the shot -- after the shooting i had been involved in. i have learned a great deal about how the situation i was involved in king to be. how the school knew the

student, the mental health policies, and gun policies, how this person was allowed to buy a gun, despite having the federal record that prohibited them from doing so. he had a mental adjudication. i had not seen other shootings. i cannot watch them. -- had not watched them. i cannot turn away. i watched the news unfold and i thought, this is how the whole world saw what happened to me. now i am seeing it happen to somebody else. yet, we change nothing. there have been no progressions in terms of gun policy or mental health policy. what gives? the end of that day was my pivot point. at that point, i said, look, i have to do whatever i can to address this issue. i became involved with the british campaign and have been

involved ever since. -- the brady campaign and have been involved ever since. host: the nra has argued that if we had guns in the schools, that would prevent some mass shootings. your thoughts? guest: the only thing i knew that morning was that i did not know what's going on. i do not think we should be taking our for step how to reduce these kinds of shootings at the last possible second. we did not even do background checks -- we do not even do background checks and never done in this country. i was shocked. terrace so much we can do it in advance to stop a person with mental ness and the gun, together in the first place. i do not think americans are going to shoot our way out of the shooting problem.

we have to look at other ways. we need to keep dangerous people away from guns to begin with. host: a couple personal questions, before we get to your calls about gun violence and the debate front and center in this country. did you return to the classroom? guest: i did. that was difficult, to try to return to the classroom and not free out whenever a kid comes in late or somebody slams the door. it was taught in the beginning. ultimately, after that last year, i was somewhat comfortable. i always think of my exit when i go into a public place. that is a piece that has forever changed. i graduated happy hokey. host: how did it change the campus? guest: it brought the community together. a lot of people were expecting students to transfer and not to

have a large incoming class. i think the opposite happened. my sister who was going to go to a different school applied to virginia tech and chose a virginia tech as her school. she is there now. i know there is a new wave of student there. they are not the ones who were there when i was there. people still say to me when i wear my virginia tech t-shirt, were you there? it has been a bad mark on our school. i think there are so many good things that have spawned from that that our school will be known for the legacy we leave afterwards and what we have chosen to do after the fact. host: a question from 20 on twitter -- guest: i have made a full recovery. i think that goes a long way to help my mental and emotional recovery. i can do everything i did before. i went skiing a few months ago with friends.

there are some people who cannot do those things, who wake up in the morning and see a different face in the mirror. they are in a different place. i feel really fortunate, really lucky to have the recovery i did. i think it allowed me to get to the point where i can become an advocate for changes in this country and to be able to share my story with people like you and your viewers. host: what you think we have had a series of mass shootings, whether it is newtown, aurora, oregon? host: you could probably write a book. i think part of it has to do with the easy accessibility of firearms. there are many -- too many people who leave their guns accessible to mentally ill people or children at home. there are not complete back contracts. those are two areas of the system that i think we need to improve. that is why i wanted to work with the bri campaign. there are a lot of factors -- the brady campaign. there are a lot of factors. host: let me share with you and our audience these numbers --

these are 2011 numbers from the top -- the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. pistols, 2.6 million. 2.3 million rifles. a hundred feet -- 62 -- 862,000 shotguns. 573,000 revolvers. what do these numbers tell you? guest: we in america like to buy guns. it has been part of our culture and tradition. i understand that. i was an army cadet for the first two years of school. i have been hunting with my buddies. i have been to the range even more, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. i think there are some simple changes, and in doing the background check on every gun cell, that i think will go a long way to keeping the second

amendment for the people it was intended for and keeping guns out of the end -- of the hands of people who should not have been in the first place. host: this came up yesterday in our conversation with emilie miller, who had to go through an extensive process of purchasing a gun in washington, d.c. you have different patchwork loss. maryland is different from virginia and new york. pennsylvania is different than upstate new york. you get the point. you can travel across borders and see different laws. host: that plays a part in the problem, why the vast majority of guns in washington, d.c. or new york do not come from that area. they come from places where it is easier to acquire. they are shipped and brought in through the illegal market. that is why we need federal standards when it comes to background checks so that you cannot go to state, or 30

minutes down the road, and avoid a backer check completely. that is why i am here in d.c. and your congress to hopefully bring about some change with some many other good people. the really missing piece has been american public engagement. we need the views shared with public officials. they do not think we really care about this. that is why they have not done anything. we need to fundamentally change that paradigm. host: we are speaking with colin goddard, a shooting victim in the 2007 incident that took place in april of that year. he is now involved with the brady campaign. caller: good morning. god bless the young man going on with his life after such a tragedy. i'm just calling to say that i

i'm just calling to say that i have a driving license, and if i can stop in the state of south carolina, they can pull up my record so that no matter what they seem to think, they can do something like that with a gun laws. when people go different places to drive, they can pull up the record on the computer. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think she brings up a great point. before you are allowed to drive a car in public, you have to be licensed, and have to register your automobile, and you have to prove that you're certified and competent. unfortunately, we do not do with that -- we do not do that with firearms. i often hear the comparison between deaths by automobiles and firearms. we have done a great deal in terms of deaths by on moabite -- on a mobile -- automobiles. we've not done the same with firearms.

great question. host: a question from one of our viewers -- hast: a dangerous person nine or 10 categories consisting of people with felony records, domestic violence restraining records, dishonorably discharged from the military -- when it comes to mental health, those who been adjudicated to be in danger to somebody or themselves -- there are specific categories. if you fall into one of those, the fbi does the background check, they are the one the process your records to make sure that you're not lying on the form when you apply to buy a gun -- those of the folks that either give the red light or green light. host: at the event ungenerous 16th in which the president

outlined his agenda items, here are the bullet points -- with all of this, what is likely to pass? guest: everything is on the same page. we tried to talk about every single part of this proposal. we realize there is not just one thing we can do or one solution to gun violence that is going to save everybody's life. we need a comprehensive set of laws and policies in place that legitimately take seriously of keeping guns out of hands of people who should not have them. initially, we're hearing there may be senate movement. this process will continue. we think everything is as equally as important. we need to do everything we can.

we need to have a comprehensive approach. host: since the virginia tech shootings, universities have invested in warning systems and processes for their faculty, staff, and visitors. can you point out what changes you saw assault 2007 -- from april 2007 to your graduation? guest: it was a game changer for universities and colleges, when it comes to how they provide physical security. for example, they do not allow -- they put locks on doors from the inside. the change the handlebars city cannot -- so you cannot chain them up. we have an emergency alert systems. that actually run drills and have created a threat assessment teams were the have faculty members, members a lot -- members of the mental health

community involved in identifying problem students and making changes they need. we have done a good deal in terms of improving our school security. we have done nothing in terms of improving or firearm security and making sure guns are not falling into the hands of those who should not have them. he host: the nra raising in excess of $1 million, one of the best fund-raising efforts ever. they're also seeing a record number of new number -- new memberships to the nra. does that surprise you? guest: people are drawn to both sides. we have seen similar significant donation increases, the chapter's starting up. it has been a phenomenal what portion of support we have seen. two months later, we try to get back to people now. keep up. -- keep it up. that is great. when people see these events, they do not want to happen to them. this should people's humanity

at the core. this was a personal tipping point, kind of like my situation was. sandy hook was the tipping point for a lot of people. we're still having conversations about our gun policy a few months later. host: one tweet -- guest: i have been up here for three years. it is crazy city. i am in this for personal background checks. i think that makes the most sense. i think it is so common sense. most people think we already do. the might be shocked to learn that we do not. i'm here in d.c. with that objective. when we achieve that, i will go into something else. i would like to work in the state department, in the foreign service overseas, but the mountain in front of me is big enough. i'm staying on focus.

host: you faced multiple bullet wounds. you still have some in your leg? guest: pieces in wide-body, -- in my body. in my paul buss -- pelvis. fortunately, i have not been in much pain. i am a volleyball player. goodappy to make a recovery. it has allowed me to engage in this work. host: have you felt different since the shooting? guest: that is one question i get a lot. most of my high-school friends probably think i was the same young guy. one thing i noticed is movies and films, especially with violence -- a disconnect when i see, particularly with gun violence. i think about, how did the director choose to portray this? did they show the intense, gruesome reality when the bullet enters the body?

then the emotional part in movies, that gets me. i'm getting choked up. that is one thing where i have noticed the biggest change. physically, i have some scars, but i'm a pretty much the guy was before. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a question for this young man. first of all, i'm sorry you had to go through such a horrible thing. if you were there and you had been alarmed at that specific time, would you try to stop that guy from shooting everybody? guest: i have thought a lot about that. i think it is natural to relive the situations in your head. i have done it every which way i can imagine from the saving the day to me getting killed.

a cut of realized that i did not understand what was going on. the moment i have a clarity was when i was shot and my leg was broken. -- i had clarity was when i was shot and my leg was broken. i'm not certain that i would have been effective, even with my army rotc training. i think we should stop things in advance. host: what was typically a routine day in april, would you have even thought about carrying a gun in the classroom? guest: know. -- no. college campuses are one of the safest places you can be in this country. people aged between 18-24 are one of the constituencies that are least likely to ever hit by a bullet. if you live anywhere else, that percentage goes a lot higher. we're talking about mass shootings.

we need to the day-to-day incidents with firearms, with that, displacement, accidental shootings, and confusion -- we're not having those in this debate. it is going to make the average dividend college life more dangerous than it currently is. host: you talk about the french teacher who was killed in the shooting. the what is her legacy? guest: her husband has taken that physical space of norris hall and turned it into a center for peace studies and violence prevention. talked-about taking it -- taking something-and turning it to the positive. i mean, the man works in the same space for his wife was killed. it's phenomenal what he has done and what he has helped create.

i admire how he has been able to internalize something so bad and put it to something good. host: rick your joining us on c-span eggemeyer we are talking to colin goddard, he was one of the virginia tech shooting victims. we're joined by our caller. caller: good morning. i am archbishop kevin mcdougal and i have been -- people do not understand. i go into hospitals and i have seen mothers grabbing the in -- grabbing me, saying, would you please which i sent out? -- would you please wait my son up? i have been in the emergency room and six people were shot at one time and they would not

even let the priest in. guns have got to be stopped. i do not care how you stop them, but they have got to -- there has got to be an end. what about the guy in the theater? it was dark. if everybody had a gun, they would have shot. the only person who did not get injured with him. he had body armor on. host: thanks for the call. guest: unfortunately, the caller has seen the gun violence. you see the horrible plight of families that go through something like this. if more americans did, we would have a very different conversation going on right now.

if people saw what i signed my classroom or what the classrooms at sandy hook look like. these people who go out violently, whose bodies are ripped apart, this is an intense situation. more people need to do the work that you are doing and see the reality of this problem and will come to realize that there is change that we need. host: the issue of background checks is the subject of a story in the "denver post" this morning. guest: it is a big problem. we have a background checks that applied to some dealers, but not all. we need to make improvements as

a joke duration -- improvements in the system by making sure that the states are sending their records over to the fbi national system. if we did that, and we made sure that every record was in there, but we do not require one to go through a background check, then where we doing? -- than what are we doing? those are so common sense, low hanging fruit issues. that is where we need to come around on this. it should have been done years ago. host: you talk about the shooting in 1999 in binghamton, new york. this is one of the things that woke me up. was newtown a game changer? guest: resign mass shooting in colorado, -- we sought a mass shooting in colorado, in ohio, and i think sandy hook was the last big crescendo in gun

violence that year. it was a ticking. -- tipping point. for a lot of people. it is horrible in some ways. it is -- why does it take something so bad to start a conversation? but here we are and let's do something with this. host: joining us from florida, good morning. caller: the next time i hear someone say man out, i will say, grow up. the problem is the guns. the people who hold the funds should be getting a background check. we have 40% that do not have any kind of background check. i worry about that. to many americans resolve issues with gun violence. and they're not all criminals. they're people who cannot control their impulses, domestic violence perpetrators. we have a stamm york -- a stand

your ground law here in florida. it's kind of like man up. talk about childish. florida has turned into the wild west. people should if you even look at them cockeyed. and they used to stand your ground law. it has got to stop. i worry about the children who accidently injure or kill themselves or another child with guns were left unattended. the conservative media was outraged when the new york newspaper published the addresses of permitted gun holders. i'm a grandmother. i would want to know before my child visited the home of an irresponsible gun holder. guest: i think the caller brings up a lot of great. . -- great points there. between -- a lot of great ideas there. between the laws that we have

state-by-state and federally, it is very aggressive. it does not help us to promote the idea that we're all americans and live in a community and we are neighbors. after we have all of these horrible instances people say, all you can really do is get a gun and protect yourself. it does not promote the sense of community. if you have an issue, i need to help you in some way and not just ignore you and say, i'm not going to worry about that. that is not a good mentality. splitting to many of us up into many factions. -- it is putting too many of us up into factions. unless we change the culture and the social norms around guns and making sure they are stored safely, making sure that we keep them out of the hands of dangerous people to begin with, then we will seek a reduction -- we will not see a reduction

in violence. host: did your parents have a view on gun violence? guest: my parents raised be overseas and have always told me to leave the world better than you found it. with the british campaign to prevent gun violence, trying to do my keys -- with the brady campaign to prevent gun violence, i'm trying to do my keys to leave the world better. and trying to find some positive way to engage. host: from our twitter page, joe says, you are onto something with regard to hollywood. are you taking aim at the movie industry? guest: we need to look more at how violence in our films and our games and their music -- and our music is affecting our population, especially young

people. i do not think that we should curb creativity, but i think that we need to understand young people at a young age should not be exposed to the credit crunch and that they're exposed to now. parents who do not -- to the kind of content that they are exposed to now. parents who do not monitor their children, if they saw what that creases on the emergency room, things would be very different. in reality, we need to realize that the twitch of a finger from a little child can and the life of a grown man. we have to take that more seriously host: in your case, did you see the face of the shooter? guest: i did not. i took one glimpse at the front of the classroom and i saw a pair of boots, khaki pants, and a white shirt, and two holsters over his shoulders. because of the way he was walking, he looked like he was

about to exit. my first thought was that he was a policeman. instead of walking out of the room, but i thought he was going to, he turned down our row of desks and shot. host: why was he there in that hall? guest: i do not know. i know he had glasses there. -- classes there. it was one of the few academic buildings that had only three big entrances and exits. he was able to chinos up before he began -- he was able to change those up before he started shooting not only did he keep people from fleeing, but he was able to keep the police from entering. it was a much more controlled environment that he was familiar with. that is my opinion of wine

norris hall was chosen. host: our next caller, nancy, on the republican line. caller: mr. goddard, you have such good visibility, i would like to run an idea by you, being a grandmother and the next school board member. i shudder every time i see this invitation at the door that says guns-free zone. i do not know why it was always badly interpreted. why has that always been interpreted wrongly? i know a sign painter and i'm going to take some signs around to our school district and our in -- and put a sign right under the gun-free zone that says, and "this means you, not us." they're talking about putting

the police department in an elementary school. i think that sounds great. a few people, very qualified people could be armed. not the whole classroom, not even your whole classroom at virginia tech. but we have to clarify this sign out there that says it is a gun-free zone. this means you, not us. what do you think of that? host: as a former board member, did you debate these issues? caller: no, we never did. we never thought of anything so horrible. but i go by a little bitty town

and they're always thought that this would be a really big calamity. no one has ever heard of it. the other thing i would like to run by you is a test at our schools. having the elementary and junior high and high school all in one block, isn't that neat and tidy? i think it is terrible. host: thank you. we will hear from our guest. guest: i think she brings up a good idea. there are places like schools or government buildings or churches that should be allowed to decide what their policy is. it was good to see in the president's package that there's more money to have school resource officers and

armed security guards where needed. and that makes sense. but we can do a better job that we are currently not doing, namely through background checks, for example, to keep dangerous guns out of hand of dangerous people. background checks do not prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun. the way they are designed, good, decent americans pass every time they take it. but some with a restraining order or a mental illness come out that information needs to be fired. -- flagged. it is difficult to make any progress and save any lives at that point. host: this from one of our viewers -- with background checks have stopped the virginia tech shooter? guest: he took two background checks. once he was committed against his will and was in front of a

judge and was adjudicated to be a danger to himself, that decision right there prohibits you from purchasing firearms. fortunately -- unfortunately, the decision after that was to get outpatient therapy rather than inpatient therapy and that was the reason why virginia did not send his medical record over to the background checking agency. one simple decision could have altered a series of events that day. something so simple as approving of background checks and making sure that all records are there could have gone a long way. host: another story in the front page of the virginia private, strong laws. those would be imposed if you purchase a gun and then give it to someone you use it violently. -- who uses it violently.

guest: it is difficult to track and to prosecute, but people need to understand we have no federal contracting laws on the books. it just does not exist. to enforce the laws that we already have on the books, that felons should not have firearms, the mentally ill should not have firearms, and forcing the army as a background check must be done. -- enforcing that law means a background check must be done. and host: richard is joining us from massachusetts, independent line. caller: how are you today? host: good morning, richard. caller: i have a couple of points i thought i would run through quickly. you do not always. any debate.

-- do not always hear it in this debate. bear with me. one thing that does not seem to come up very often is that all of the shootings have happened in gun free zones and that there have been a great number of people whose lives who have been saved because they had guns. you do not often hear that on the media. also, chicago, new york, and boston, which have some of the tightest gun-control laws in the country, have the most violence. i will finish off by portilla that a -- finished off by pointing out that dianne feinstein wants to remove all guns from the american people, she says, except for the military and police. the countries that have done this in the past are germany under adolf hitler, russian -- russia under stalin, and now sits on in china, these things led to the -- and now it's a town -- mai tse tung in china.

millions of people lost their lives in the circumstances. guest: i have heard the comments that richard made, made before. certainly, the shooting in tucson, ariz., was not a gun- free zone. the shooting just yesterday las vegas was not a gun-free zone. they happen everywhere. unfortunately, the conversation that we're talking about, background checks for example, making sure they are down on everybody, get extrapolated to this degree that ultimately, this will result in people getting their doors kicked open and having someone take their guns. that is not the conversation at

all. that is not what any of these bills or legislation will do it is unconstitutional to do that. we have the decision that you cannot ban guns. i think that is a great decision. it removes the extreme position that everyone is quite drop their guns taken away. setting background checks on all gun sales is a good way to move forward. host: one man says, his advice, by a shotgun. -- the vice president, his advice, buy a shotgun. guest: biden speaks in a very frank manner. it shows that even the vice president is not opposed to buying firearms. he understands that there are legal gun owners all over this country. many of them have told us that they support background checks on all gun sales. we have seen polling that shows seven out of tend nra members

as well support background checks. nine out of 10 americans. these are reasonable grounds that we're gaining a consensus on. we need to get progress in this country. host: the christian science monitor's looking at guns in america and pointing out this figure, that when it comes to win it -- of overall deaths, in 2011, the fbi reporting 323 murders committed with a rifle compared to 6000 to wonder 20 committed with handguns in the u.s. -- 6220 committed with handguns in the u.s. guest: right, something very small and easily concealable can be used in more crimes. we should look at the weapons that we sell to the general public. i was shocked to see some of

the guns i could buy at banjo's around the country. guns that i thought that had no place -- and i could buy at the end shows around the country. guns that i thought had no place on the street. when i learned that there was an ar-15 with a 100-round drum used in that movie theater in colorado, i was blown away. as a military weapon. that's no place for anywhere in our country in civilian hands appeared to be able to shoot 100 rounds without stopping has no common purpose for practical self- defense for hunting or sport shooting. that is an accessory bill to kill as many human beings as possible. we need to take a hard look at the guns that we sell to the general public. host: final question. you were on the way to the hospital on that april morning and then recovering for several months in the hospital. what was going through your mind? guest: just trying to find some

sense of more normalcy again. everything gets turned up side down. you have to revise things will never be quite the same way as they were. but with -- you have to realize things will never be quite the same way as they were. but with some work you can find some sense of security again, some sense of purpose, some sense of comfortable nest in this country. the work that i've been doing with the brady campaign, that has been a way to continue talking about this issue and not keeping it inside, you know, getting it off my chest, as well as taking this bad experience and channeling it toward something good. it was not just me that got me involved. it was because i saw happening to other people and nothing being done about it. i'm here in washington to ask people to help me get something done, so we can see substantive change in his country and the reduction of the number of people shot and killed. host: in your classroom, how many students were in the class?

how many were shot? and how many killed? >> 17 people in the classroom, including my teacher, and i'm one of seven still alive. there were 32 people killed that morning. about another 19 or so injured from gunfire. and another three or four injured from jumping out of seconds for windows and breaking their legs or ankles on the way down. and there were many more that i consider emotionally injured. we changed the community. for anyone who deals with hardship in their life or anything new comes out of left field entered their lives upside down, you do not have to remember for those events that you have no control over. you can be remembered for how you pick yourself up and move forward and what you choose to do with those days forward. when you find a way to do something positive, that is a good example. like i said, leave the world a

better place than you found it. host: colin goddard, thank you for being with us. >> on the next "washington journal," jack martell will talk about the nba's meeting in washington. then the association of unmanned vehicles international on local and state regulations of junk -- of drones. george church will discuss proposals to map the human brain. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> and next, more on a gun laws from the center for urban renewal and education. then transportation secretary ray lahood at today's white house briefing. later, tom donahue.

>> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. during the revolution, she was considered an enemy by the british who threatened to take her hostage. later, she would become our nation's first first lady. wheat martha washington monday night in the first program of c- span's new weekly series "first lady's." we will visit some of the places that influenced her life, including colonial williamsburg -- colonial williamsburg, philadelphia, and be part of a conversation with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook posts. live at monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> a group of african-american activists argued against stricter gun laws. we will hear from a father whose son was killed in a gang shooting, a former football player, and the former head of

the national black chamber of commerce. >> good morning everyone. welcome members of the media. our distinguished guests and panelists here assembled this morning. in support of the second amendment. today, this morning, we have our speakers lined up and are going to be commenting on this important issue as it relates to their communities, as relates to our country, as relates to the policies and procedures in our nation. this morning, i'm going to speak for our chairman of the board for the center for urban renewal and education, kent blackwell who couldn't be here and i'll read his statement for you now, with a little help of technology.

the second amendment is a fundamental right enshrined in that sacred list of liberties in our constitution that we call the bill of rights. it is right along side the freedom of speech, the freedom of religious faith, the right that no person can ever make you a slave, the right that no state can deprive us of our rights or equal protection of the law and the right to vote. it is a right of self-defense. in 1791, that right was adopted as the second amendment as a right of the people to ban together to collectively defend themselves against public violence, meeting government tyranny. in 1868, that right was extended to the 14th amendment to also defend against government oppression by state or local governments.

and by 1791, through 1868 to 2013, it was and is also the right to defend yourself against private violence. the violence perpetrated by criminals. yes, the framers of the constitution wanted people to be able to hunt. and that is an essential part of our cultural fabric as a people. it is a rich part of our heritage, part of self- reliance, a way of passing down our values. it is also -- it also provides precious time to spend time for fathers and sons and increasingly mothers and daughters. the right to bear arms is also for competition, for sporting and also for collectors. but as the supreme court recognized just five years ago,

it was for the right of self- defense against some future government that would refuse to stand for re-election and would hold on to power by military might and against lawlessness and heartless folks who would victimize others. that those who founded our nation made this right part of the supreme law of the land forever trumping every president, congress and court that would ever hold office in the united states. that right to protect one's life and liberty is a god-given right. it is a gift from god, not a grant from government. the government does not give us this right, just as the declaration of independence makes clear, government does not give us any of our inalienable rights. instead, it is the role of government to recognize the right god has given to each of us to respect those rights and to secure those rights.

that's what the second amendment does. and it is an essential right for every american citizen who is law abiding and peaceable regardless of skin color, geography, education or socioeconomic status. it is easy to understand how the second amendment relates to the cultural of a norman rockwell painting with a father with his son walking through the woods with shotguns and rifles hunting for ducks and deer. the core rights protected by the second amendment to protect yourself against public and private violence is just as real for americans of all races and ethnic groups. we thank god that we no longer are in days where we have to fear government violence. with a second amendment right to resist a tyrannical right to be the right of a black man in the deep south in 1870 to protect himself from a mob posse which a sheriff would look the other way or be led by a local sheriff's deputy.

but the right against private violence is even more important for so many black americans today. a black man or woman in his or her 20's should be face and secure in their apartment or going to work. a black father has a right to protect his family and a home. or too often, and this is sad because it is harming to many black children, it is a single mother. she has every right to demand that she be able to protect herself and her family. the only clear equalizer between a striving young mother or grandmother and a full grown man breaking into her home is a firearm that she knows how to responsibly store and use.

i stand with you today in the protection of our second amendment rights. sincerely ken blackwell, chairman, board of directors, center for urban renewal and education. thank you. [applause] next to the podium, i would like to introduce someone near and dear to me and all members of our organization, many of you know who she is and how she functions in media, star parker, founder and president of center for urban renewal and education, otherwise known as cure. >> thank you, lonnie poindexter who is our director for outreach. we appreciate the comment from our board chairman ken blackwell and he is a board member of the n.r.a. as well as a former mayor of the city of cincinnati. this issue is important to him as well. greetings, thank you, good

morning. i'm the founder and president of cure. a conservative think tamping that promotes solutions to fight poverty. this has called this black history press conference today to bring attention to the importance of defending the right of all americans guaranteed under the second amendment of our constitution to bear arms. thank you for being here. we are gathered here today to provide a forum for black leaders from the world of politics and public policy in washington, from the business community and from the clearing to express our deep concern about efforts currently under way to limit our god-given and constitutional right of self- defense. cure is based in washington, d.c.,, i'm a resident of california, thus senator feinstein the author of one of the proposals to advance government control over gun ownership is my representative. cure is hosting this press conference with the hope that the information we share today

will serve as a reminder to senator feinstein and to all other united states senators that black history is arrive with government demands to strip away our constitutional rights. we are standing here today because we believe it is our duty as african-american citizens to join together and challenge the gun proposals currently being considered on capitol hill. two points, number one, the call for universal background checks as qualifiers for constitutional rights and painful memories of jim crow laws. a substantial body of research already shows that gun control empowers criminals and weaken law-abiding citizens. regarding black reality, blacks are the least armed, least protected and defended and most assaulted citizens in our country. according to a recent survey, 42% of whites and 16% of blacks say they have a pistol, rifle at home. can anyone who god has blessed with a brain actually think that universal background checks in which one past legal infraction will not result in

even fewer law-abiding black men from obtaining a weapon to protect their families. and what about black women? according to research published in the british journal of sigh ki at try at bowling green state university, studies show 81% higher risk of mental health problems with women who have had abortion. will it be a question on the background check application? number two, the call for banning specific guns at senator feinstein has proposed is prop attic as it puts too much power in the hands of politicians and the law establishment which can't always be trusted. 40% of whites compared with 24% of blacks said they have great deal of confidence in the local police to enforce the law. law-abiding black citizens live

under siege in crime-ridden communities, yet somehow they are supposed to buy the logic giving more power to those in law enforcement already charged with maintaining order but don't, while stripping away the freedoms of those who do obey the law will make us better off. one question the gun control advocates are never challenged to answer for the most vulnerable in our country when they are moving to promote gun control, how do you fake a gun from the underground, a raceist cop or tyrannical government. taking arms from law abiding- many, black slamb and jim crow history should serve as a call that america caps of all backgrounds must fight this current round and all attempts at gun control. this black history month press conference is dedicated to the tradition of black history legend frederick douglass, a runaway slave and orator, stated on this issue that, a man's right rests in three boxes, ballot box, jury box and cart ridge box.

we are pleased by representatives from all across this country who have come here at their own expense to share their thoughts with us today. we have the opportunity for four to five of them to make a presentation here. we are pleased that media has come and we will be available to answer your questions after these presentations. i will call on them and have media ask questions and then you can talk to the rest who have gathered. we will take a small break and go for lunch and do a round table discussion on this extremely important issue. but that particular meeting is closed to the press. first joining us is dr. ken

hutcherson, a former american football line backer in the nfl for the dallas cowboys who is a pastor in the great state of washington. doctor. [applause] >> thanks so much, star. it is a privilege to be here today. i'm going to tell you how important it is to me to be here. i have had cancer for 12 years. i have had bone cancer for 4 1/2 years. if you ever dealt with anyone with bone cancer or know anything about cancer, that is a very, very difficult time and the pain oftentimes is unbearable, but i came from seattle to be here because this issue is a lot more important than my health. it is a lot more important than

my church. thana lot more important just myself. now i think it's important that i was shocked last month -- night that i may have to change my mind about something and that is when i heard several african american pro-bole nfl greats greats came out and said we should work on changing the second amendment. they are supporting the president's ways of going after the second amendment. what i have to change my mind is that i think it's probably true there was brain damage in the nfl. [laughter] >> i'm going to tell you how important the constitution is and we should be very careful about changing anything, especially the second amendment. all of you in here understand the importance of light. light gives us ways that we can step correctly. the constitution to the united

states is the light. it allows us to walk consistently and constantly. now you may not appreciate that example unless you understand the importance of light. do you understand the first thing that god created was light. light. light obeyed god. god created it in genesis. you can say whatever you want -- i believe in god -- i believe earth is a young earth. genesis tells me that life started proudly over 7000 years ago.

we need to be obedient to god. that's not our president. he turned his light off. we cannot see, we cannot walk. light travels at 186000 miles per second. it has been doing that since genesis. why are we wanting light to change? we are we thinking about changing the consitution? it is proven that for african

americans to protect thems3elves -- themselves -- light travels in one hour 16 billion miles. has been doing it since genesis. it has not slowed down. i never heard light slow down. we are not going to change our thoughts on what needs to be done. how about light in a year?

you mjultiply -- multiply 16 billion by 365 -- i know you whites are saying, there's no way a black man can figure that out. it is so important for us to understand that light has been traveling like that since genesis, being obedient to god. we have not been here any amount of time. how long, how many children have to die before we know that the issue about the second

ammendment is about changing the consitution? how many children have to die? how many of you put in front of your house is sign that says gun-free zone? how many of you put in front of your house i have diamonds, gold, silver, critics and the artifacts and i am not home. my guard dogs are locked up and i will not be home until 3:30 tomorrow afternoon. still we want to put gun-free zone in front of our schools. how many black children have to

die before you care? black on black crime don't get any front page news but you get sandy hook. and what happens? everybody is in an uproar. we have had 10 times as many african-american children killed with guns. how many children have to die, black and white, for us to come to the conclusion most of the gun violence is in cities with the most gun control. when are we going to put some common sense in there? how many children have to die before we get these lunatics off the streets?

but because of their privacy, cannot do anything about it. often families struggle to get a institutionalize. how many children have to die before we realize that a bad man with a gun can only be stopped and bought a good man with a gun? thank you. [applause] >> thank you, pastor. i am so pleased you travel so far to be here with us today. we have people from all over the country who have traveled. next we have a local here in washington, d.c. mr. harry alford, the co-founds of the national black chamber of commerce. he represents people all across the country. his chamber represents 2 million black businesses in the united states. they handle a variety of issues.

he is not a stranger in the halls of congress and even consulting sometimes with the white house. >> thank you. good morning. i am harry alford, i represent 2.1 million black owned businesses in the united states. we have 140 chapters in the u.s. in 95 chapters elsewhere. our business owners, many of them have retail stores, restaurants, cash operations. our previous board chair has a concrete plant in new orleans. after katrina wiped out everybody, his business was booming but he had to have brinks truck come to a company twice a day and had two of his employees armed. he was not going to let his

business go down because of some bad guys. i want to thank the lord for our constitution. i also want to thank the nra for its legacy. it was started, founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect free slaves from the kkk. they would raise money, buy arms, shall the slaves how to use those arms of protect their families. many of us may not have been here today if it were not for the nra. rodney king showed an interesting model when the riots started in la and rioters got to korea town, the violence stopped. because every mel corrine has issued with those stores stood

outside, they drew a line -- because every male korean with those stores stood outside, they drew a line. they held their weapons. it is a right. to live in southern california, you have scorpions, diamond head rattlers, coyotes, mountain lions. one of my neighbors lost his stock to a mountain lion that came into his backyard. -- lost his dog to a mountain lion that came into his backyard. a gun with a scared of a lion. what if you are living in florida and the python snake is in your yard between you and your child or pet? what are you going to do?

god gives you the right and the constitution does to protect that child or your animal or your house. louisiana, alligators show up. you have to deal with it. if you are a farmer, you have to deal with these things. but what is going on here in this town is a mind game. this is a diversion to keep you off the thought of this poor economy which generates crime. this is about crime and is trying to divert your attention away from it because they cannot create jobs. i have two quotes from people who know what they're talking about. bruce weinberg, ohio state university -- but officials can

pass tougher citizen laws and take other steps to reduce crime but there are limits to how much these can do. we found that a badly premarket has a profound impact on the crime rates -- that a bad labor market has a profound impact on the crime rates. this causes more unemployment a spiral situation from which it is difficult to recover. what we need to do is create jobs, businesses. small businesses create less crime. though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death, i fear no evil because i am the meanest and fiercest person walking into the valley.[laughter]

>> thank you. and a reminder of the los angeles riot.i was actually there during that time as well. you are absolutely right. that is what we saw. you are right, that most of the violence stopped when they reached korea town.i vividly saw, at my baskin-robbins, that korean on his roof with that shotgun. our next speaker is a pastor of a baptist congregation here in washington. he has begun rights activists since 1991. kenn blanchard was one of the first black fire arms inspectors in the cia.-- instructors in the cia, the central intelligence agency. thank you for joining us. >> good morning. in honor of black history, i want to introduce you to two people -- my mother and my grandmother.

mary from virginia was my first instructor and the fire arms. my grandmother had a loaded shotgun next to her with a burning stove all my life.-- her wood-burning stove all my life. it was secured only by we knew if we want to mess with the shotgun, we have to go through her.the shotgun did a couple of things. it secured the children, 30 of us who went there for refuge.my grandmother was the place you would go when your family was not doing too well. we went there during summer vacation.there was not much to the house. it was the love that was in it. granma taught us a lot.she was the mother of a church. she prepared communion on sunday. she was that mother. she also had the shotgun and remember when there was a strange pickup truck early in the morning that showed up at the house. all the kids said there are some white guys coming out of the pickup truck. she grabbed the shotgun, moved to the screen door and she said

the morning.-- good morning. they said, good morning. we are passing through your land, and we wanted to make sure we gave you some deer on the way back.i watched these men respect this little old lady from parts of tidewater. i could see their eyes. they could see she had some that in her hand. that make a difference in my life. you can talk the talk but you have to walk the walk sometimes. i learned as a marine that sometimes you do not have to fire a shot, you just have to carry yourself the right way. i learned that lesson when i got into the city and my mother said you were a country at one time but now we have to work in a system and you don't hunt here in the city and they talk about guns. i had to remind my mother, we have the same mom. remember the shotgun.she said, oh yeah.

later, when i became a firearms constructor -- instructor, when i came a protector, it was not by my own doing.i just ended up getting in that mode. i have been a safety guard, lifeguard. if it had a guard on the back of it, i have done it.bodyguard. one time i stood outside the bedroom of president reagan.i am a man who carried a gun most of his life. when i got to the clergy, they said, you know what? you are really different from us. i said, you know what? i am just a shepherd. a shepherd would defend his flock in go into harm's way. i became the shepherd of hunters and fishermen and those who do not easily come to church.i am a big evangelist. i will go to where the people are. they said i am glad you're here. help us understand how the world is making us seem like bad guys. i said as the hunter, you have a special spot in the world. you are conserving things.

you are making the whole ecosystem work. they say if you look at the news, we are the bad guys. only because they do not know. only because they are using the lack of responsibility and the false god. we have a responsibility problem. no one was to take responsibility for anything. and we want to make somebody else our god.which is the ultimate sin. when a politician steps forward and says i can save your children, you cannot save my child but somebody believes that person has the right to do anything.you are stepping out of bounds. i am honored to be here as yet another shepherd to say trust in the only true god. he is a provider of your safety. he who taught david who trained his hands for war. there is a time and place for

everything. we have to make sure we do not give to much power to those who really have none. politicians are not gods. take them off the pedestal. it is your responsibility.take them out of the position which we have put them in. they cannot fix your family. you have to fix your family. you have to take care of your child. you have to take care of your wife, your husband. it is your responsibility. what god gives you, you are stored up.-- are a steward of. sometimes you have to go into harm's way. and you cannot do it with harsh words and empty promises. thank you. [applause] >> our next presenter as from the gun-free state of new york. he is joining us as the president of core, the congress for racial equality.

it is one of the oldest civil rights organizations in the country. nigel, thank you.-- niger, thank you. [applause] >> thank you for putting this important press conference together today. i will not be nearly as eloquent as the speakers i came before me. a lot has been asserted here. let me briefly say that gun- control for black americans has been about people control. it sprouts from racist soil. be it after the or during the dredd scott case where black humanity was not recognize.the beauty about some racists is that sometimes they are blatantly honest. the racist chief justice said we cannot allow the law to recognize the humanity of this

individual because he will be able to keep and bear arms. when a lot of democratic controlled segregationist governments after the civil war attempted to deny black men and women their freedom, they instituted coats largely to deny the second amendment.there were newly freed slaves. today in our urban centers, and it's in black folks may not be -- innocent black folk may not be the victims of the klan or white racism but we are the victims of merciless criminals that are armed and do not give a darn about gun-control laws. how dare you talk about taking away a constitutional right. the second amendment is not about guns. it is about freedom and liberty.

it is about full humanity of decent people. many of us gun rights advocates -- my father, the chairman of the college of racial equality, serves on the board of the nra. i want to thank harry alford about as powerful words about the nra. and the history, to establish by former union soldiers the were disturbed southerners could shoot straighter and better than northerners. the reality is for me, it is more than the philosophies around the second amendment. it is personal. i lost two brothers to violence. one in 1968, one in 1982. they were murdered by criminals who did not pay attention to gun laws.

they were murdered in communities, the south bronx and harlem, in cities that have the strictest gun control laws. i asked myself what if decent people in those communities were my brothers were killed had the opportunity to step the in and confirm that bad criminal with -- to step in to confront that bad criminal with the gun with a good person with a gun? they might be alive today. thank you all for this important support for freedom and liberty. [applause] >> our next presenter is from georgia, dr. deborah honeycutt. she is a board certified family medicine physician and medical director of clayton state university health clinic.

she serves as the georgia state delegate to the american academy of family physicians commission on education.i really appreciate my dear friend joining us at this very important press conference. dr. honeycutt. >> thank you. i am from the great state of georgia but i was born in chicago. and now i live just a stone's throw from kennesaw, georgia. chicago, one of the strictest gun law areas in our country, murder rate off the charts. kennesaw, georgia, where every able-bodied head of household as mandated by law to have a fire arm for protection of their families. very low.

in the last 20 years, there have been three murders there. but i speak to you from the standpoint of a position today. -- a physician today. the second amendment, a well regulated militia being necessary to the securities of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. as a physician when considering a patient's problem, i take seriously my pledge to first do no harm. anyone who needs a doctor, and they want to be cared for by a doctor who takes seriously that pledge. do no harm.

those who serve in our united states government take a pledge to uphold the constitution of these united states. despite the cdc reports that in 2010, fire arms were used to take the lives of almost 32,000 americans the homicide, suicide or unintentional shootings and despite some recent highly publicized yet tragic murders committed with firearms, constitutionally protected rights must remain. obesity is a serious problem in america, increasing and the prevalence, affecting millions and causing 300,000 deaths a year in our country. president obama has voiced his

concern regarding obesity, noting initiatives like let's move and the myplate guidelines. solutions aimed at motivating people and supplying them with knowledge and opportunity to make the best choices for their health. we would not think of enacting regulations that outlaw eating or eating certain foods or that dictate how much food a person can just because some people are obese in this country. banning guns or infringing the gun rights of citizens does not and will not keep criminals are those intent on harming others from acquiring and using guns. the persons who want to infringe upon our constitutional right to keep and bear arms must be made to understand that they are not keeping their pledge to uphold

our constitution. so i asked our president and the congress, do no harm. do no harm to these citizens. uphold your pledge, just like i as a physician up hold my pledge. uphold the constitution. don't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. uphold that constitutional right. first, do us no harm. [applause] >> thank you. our next presenter is reverend william owens, the founder of god, guns, and the constitution. cure works closely with his

coalition of african-american pastors and we will be hosting regional town halls in black communities across the country on this important issue. [applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i want to give honor to god and his son jesus christ. honor to those who spoke before me. also honored to my wife of 27 years and my four children.four and no more. they are all out the door. [laughter] i am founder of warriors arise ministries, spiritual warfare. we are engaged in a great spiritual conflicts in our nation. the current trajectory in which the obama administration is leading our country is evident through policy.

policy being executed sometimes with executive orders. it should call every leader to rise and speak truth to power. especially the clergy in the white and black community. to forsake this highest call is to surrender our families and our faith. we have no option but to draw the line in the sand and stand against this and any eric it-- eric and -- arrogant effort to tamper with our constitutional right to bear arms. on february 2 of this year, i stood in front of the capitol building and held a press conference on this issue.and the issue -- this follows from the

fact that the pastor talked about light. the light is forged and gets its power from the truth. john 8:32 says you shall know the true and it shall set you free. i want to look at this issue. history will testify of what is to come. the truth of god's hand was upon christopher columbus and in such a way that he declared these words --the working out of all things was entrusted by our lord to each person. but it happens in conformity with his solemn will even though he gives advice to many.i have found our lord well disposed towards my heart's desire.he gave my spirit intelligence for the task. who doubts this illumina and was

from the holy spirit? thellumination was from holy spirit? with marvelous rays of light, he consoled me, the sacred scriptures in clear testimony encouraging me to proceed. clearly, without ceasing for a moment, they enflamed me with a sense of great urgency. were it not for god upon the heart of this man, we would not be standing here today. the truth is it was the guns or muskets and swords of the regiment that fought off the efforts of the british to take away their armor. that name was given to them by the british, the black robe regimen.the truth is, it is

both god holding our hands and our gun in the other made the constitution possible. so that you have god, guns, and the constitution. you can't have one without the other. it is the same constitution that will ensure we keep tyranny at bay.anyone who claims christianity, and not everyone does, and not everyone should, anyone who claim please tell american people why we should and why some do deny-- and not everyone should, please tell american people why we should and why some do deny the history of god and therefore the historic context of guns. should we be solid to a political agenda contrary to the truth that god, guns, and the constitution work together to enable us what we enjoy today? this current administration is

far from the truth. this agenda is becoming more and more obvious to all. it is a distraction. it is an excuse to carry out an ideology that is more evident every day that goes by that is anti-american. when you go against the second amendment, you cannot be more anti-american.because america would not be, without her guns. guns would not be necessary without her god. we call upon americans, all americans, to agree upon this -- without god, guns, and the constitution, america's end will come with haste when they change our constitution, they will take our guns and when they take our guns, they also seek to take our god. that is when americans will fight back. we fought with the help of god

so it cannot come as a surprise americans will fight when our freedom is at questioned. what mother would not fight to protect her child? what nation would not fight to protect its existence? i say to those who claim the christian faith, their claim of christianity demands you to speak to these issues as christ would.even as my claim of christianity demands me to speak truth to power. we are doing these town hall meetings.god, guns, and the constitution. our next one is in dallas on march 9. we are determined to bring pastors, leaders together to discuss these issues. people are coming out because they are concerned. i want to thank star parker for putting this on.

our second amendment is ours to keep and we must defend it and ensure that no power takes it away. thank you very much. [applause] >> our final speaker of this session pastor bruce rivers from the great state of california. he is the father of a child who was murdered by gang members and he wanted to put a face on what urban centers are dealing with in particular to this issue. [applause] >> and the church said amen. i no politician. i'm just a preacher. you invite me to the party, you have to let me get away i dance.

i want to thank god for this opportunity to stand up for freedom. i want to thank star parker for the cure pastor's network.i am one of the original members. amen. i want to echo the words of frederick douglass -- a man's rights rest in three boxes -- the ballot, jury and cartridge box. upon hearing from the god- appointed speakers before me, i am humbled today. i grew up on the monterey peninsula. the adopted son of a navy veteran father and civil service

mother. i went to college, graduated, traveled, and finally settled down. god blessed me with a great lady, two sons and a daughter. time passes, seasons change, people grow up and the community i lived in changed. seaside, california, a large african american population existed and we have one of a time growing up there.-- a wonderful time growing up there in the 1960's and 1970's. fast forward to 1993, after a family trip after thanksgiving, life turned upside down. my son was gunned down in front of my house by men who had criminal records and automatic weapons. one of the guns was found on the day of my son's funeral.the police chased one of the alleged shooters through his harm --

through his home. due to our total disregard god's foundation, nothing was done. no arrests were made until 20 years later. you get home and read genesis 4. the word of god teaches us about the first murder. cain's sacrifice was unacceptable then he got angry with god and god insisted he do the right thing.in other words, cain got a little ticked off he could not do his own thing. cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with god. sounds like our country. there were no guns available then.there may have been a knife, or maybe a rock or a farming tool. the bible does not say cain had the knife or a gun, the point is the evil in his heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

god did not ban rocks or knives then, but he did ban the murderer. let me be clear. there is no such thing as an assault weapon. these are just high-caliber guns. the ar in the ar-15 does not stand for assault rifle. it stands for the company that made it.the armor light company, who later sold it to cold. -- colt. get this stuff right when you put it out there. it stands for the armor right

-- arlmmorlight rifle. i have asked myself this question -- with the proposed regulations i have been reading on the table today, would they have saved my child from being gunned down? no. the criminal who had the gun did not obey the law. the guns they had were illegal. i told you they found one. the suspect was running through his house. the killing went on for close to three years in our community. we lost nine children.in seaside, california, on the beautiful monterey bay. children who the summer before were all in my living room playing video games. has forgiveness come? yes. what stopped the killing?not the law. not the police. you do realize police officers are peace officers, not really protectors. it was prayer.

we went out on the street corner and stood 72 hours on the anniversary of my son's death. 3 days standing and praying. and the killing stopped. there is a plan to force me and you to live apart from our god by agreeing with everything contrary to his standard. god, when he dealt with cain, did not register rocks a put a background check on those with their farm equipment or whatever cain used to kill his brother. instead he dealt with the criminal. i remember going with my uncle hunting at big sur, chasing those pigs and rabbits. i remember my father taking me to the gun range to learn proper understanding of guns. i also learned i had the right to bear arms.

i was not home that night but i heard the 35 gun shots. i learned then, i and the first line of defense in my house. not just the police and certainly not this government. those who built on the wall and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked as construction and the other hand they held a weapon. every one of the builders had

his sword girded at his side as he built. as we begin to rebuild the freedom in this country, i have learned enough, how to say i shall not be moved. i have learned how to say no new rules until you learn to enforce the ones we already have. in the name of jesus, i pray. [applause] >> thank you, pastor. we love the passion of our pastors. it is one reason we have hired mr. lani poindexter to move from california to head up this great work. i will turn up back over to mr. poindexter to engage the media on any questions.thank you.

[applause] >>i wanted to comment that what we are attempting to achieve is to give you a cross section of black america of god fearing people who have a strong love for our constitution. we love our country, our government and our constitution and our freedom that gives us the right to be the line of defense in seeing to the protection of our family.and those that we love, those close and dear to us. read questions now.

>> can you talk about the jim crow law and the background check? >> the first gun laws in america started in virginia.we were still colonies. from 1640, there has been a longtime history of rulesagainst who has the guns. the first gun law was against native americans, africans, and chinese servants. it has grown every 30 years since then.especially after the civil war, there was an institution of the black code.if you know who has the guns, you can take the guns. it was instituted as a habitual thing for the african community that and you want to keep your

child out of jail.if you had a musket ball -- if he had even a dog in your property, you could be pulled out by any citizen. the rules continue that way. mothers would say i cannot what my boys playing with guns. not because of the second amendment but to keep them alive. when you had everything against you, and we moved, it got even worse in the cities.we lost space. we were crammed together. all the laws were put exactly where the black people were. chicago and detroit became the strictest place is because they wanted to keep us in check.keep us in line. that has been a steady stream. it was stopped. so when you say registration, it is a button for me. >> any other questions?>> could

we have you come up to the microphone, so everybody can hear your question? thank you so much. >> thank you for having this great press conference.the awareness in the american public is sorely needed. do you have a response to the colorado legislator who told women that if they may be raped, they should use pens or bodily fluids because they may shoot somebody by mistake if they had guns? those legislators were democrats.[laughter]>> it seems often to be the democrats who want to take away the second amendment from american citizens. it is the same party that enslaved and also instituted most of the jim crow laws we saw.part of it, as you just heard, was to take away the

right to bear arms. on the question of women and arms, there is an insistent that people cannot be trained to shoot a gun. so there for women to take a second place in our society and wait for the police. we have had records of testimony that this is not a good idea because often and particularly in black communities, it takes the police a little longer to get there. so it is important women have learned how to secure and use an arm and protect their second amendment rights to bear arms. absolutely. >> i cannot know i would be standing here today but on that comment -- i am the wife of pastor sandler. we are from nyc who just passed that law about not bearing arms. i am a gun owner.i own two

legally registered pistols. if i was attacked and possibly raped, and women are being assaulted every day, i would not want to try to defend myself with some in bodily fluids. half the churches in newberg, i work with ex-offenders every day. most of the individuals i work with have gun charges.i have worked with the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated for 25 years. not one of those criminals, their gun charges have never been legally. they never legally owned those guns.can we get this right in the media, congress? they never owned guns because they legally went and possessed

those. if i had an attacker come to me, i would not say i'm going to pee and that will stop you.i am going to pull out my 38 that i legally own. i will aim for center mass, and i am going to shoot them and that would stop them from assaulting me. and when i go home that evening, my husband would be comfortable knowing i did that. my husband takes me to the range and that makes him comfortable that i know how to use a weapon. >> thank you. >> my name is zina hackworth. i live in st. louis, missouri and i am a gun owner. my daughter has a membership and she goes and shoots.my 14-year-

old daughter has a membership. she goes and she shoots. our 11-year-old daughter has a membership. she goes and shoots. lastly, our eight-year-old daughter has a membership at the range. she goes, and she knows how to shoot. i believe every mother out there, if you care about your daughter, don't depend on the government or police officers to protect your children.there are classes. i am also an nra member.i am a card-carrying member of the nra. i will tell you, it is important for women to ignore what everyone else is saying. think of by your own protection and think of your own protection and that of your children.make sure you know how to use a firearm, like i do, and my eight-year-old. make sure you know how to shoot an aim and do it well. all of my daughters do. we are not going to wait for 911.if somebody comes up to me,

they are going to meet my glock 19. i am a ccw and i carry a glock 19.it holds 15 rounds. i also carry extra magazines. just so that you know. [laughter] there are classes out there. just like you would not hand your keys over to a six-year-old and say go ahead and take a car. you make sure -- we need to teach them about gun safety.you make sure a kid knows what to do. they take classes, and they learn. that is what we do with our children. we need to teach them about gun safety, especially our girls. my girls will know how to handle a gun before they know how to handle a car. >> as a physician, i too am a legal gun owner. as a physician, i continually hear in my head first do no harm.

i also know that means first do no harm to me.[laughter] anyone that approaches me, i want them to know i do have a concealed carry permit. don't let the pink handle on my pistol fool you. i can shoot center mass with the best of them. [applause] >> any other questions? >> you mentioned but can you explain what you seem to be saying -- gun control has racist origins? could somebody elaborate on that? he gave a few sentences about that.

>> we know that gun control laws have racist origins. i would like stacy to share. >> thank you. i am the president of the frederick douglass society. many of the speakers have approached that subject. one speaker talked about how the first gun laws were put into place to register black folks to make sure they would know who we were so we could not defend ourselves. if you look at the, right after the emancipation proclamation, what was going on in southern states, it was clear they wanted to disarm black people from defending themselves against the klan.

there is a correlation between gun-control and black people control.i will be very brief. i was not always this conservative. i grew up in the home of liberals.i grew up in a community of liberals. once upon a time, i used to do some things some people would call criminal.the bible says, when i was a child, i spoke as a child, i thought as a child. when i became a man, i put away childish things. i grew up in the streets and i want you to know that the homes that criminals look for to commit crimes are the ones they assume there is not a gun owner of the home. it was a man across the street from me.most black folks will tell you -- when i grew up, if the home owner had a gun, they would tell you they would kill you then call the police. everybody in my neighborhood

knew you did not go to the men across the street because they had guns. those of use that were young and stupid, we knew to leave our community to do something like that. if you think for one minute that gun-control will do anything about reducing crime, you have just played into the hands of criminals and they are having a party and thanking the democrats for making it easier for them to take the lives of law-abiding citizens.god bless you, and god bless america. >> any other questions? this will be the last question. >> i am an er doctor and spent five years in brooklyn at kings county hospital.i do not know if you are familiar with that. we got on average 2-3 gun shots a day.at least one dies.

that was our daily life. we got used to it. 1-2 people died a day from gunshots. when the shooting happened in the school, everybody was talking about it. i kept asking myself why aren't they talking about the daily killing in this community?is there any reason for that? most of the killing was illegal guns, gang related. why the media is not paying attention to 25-35 who die daily from gunshots?just pay attention to this. >> would you like to address that? >> about the diversion? you said they were diversions. >> it is a diversion. they can't figure out the

economy, they cannot create jobs.you got these youngsters -- my twin boys are college- educated. they have to start their own business. their cohorts can't find work coming out of school. as opposed to thinking businesslike and created jobs, they are focusing on shooting. it is ironic that new york and chicago are the highest homicide rates. indianapolis, my wife's home town -- we lived there 10 years. indianapolis, everybody there has a gun and about 20% of them show their pistols on their hips. they walk around.they come in the grocery store, pistols on their hip. you get a murder in indianapolis, it is front-page news.we had two murders last week. everybody has a gun. people do not mess with people. >> we are not ignoring some of

the challenges confronting african american communities. if you look at the hands of liberals, you will see a lot of guilt of their for their bleeding heart approaches to black plight in this country. after engineering the great society and war on poverty, we have begun to see the collapse of the black family. during the 1960's when they started social engineering, 70% of black children were raised in marital household so we did not see the escalated crime rate we see today. today, 7 out of 10 black children are raised in single households.there are other challenges confronting this particular community. on the issue of gun control, most of the black communities have been the most violent crime are gun controlled area. we at cure address some of the problems confronting black people.

we do not want to neglect the importance of them. but when it comes to protecting the constitutional right of an individual american to bear arms, we want to make no mistake to say that other issues are being ignored and this one has taken precedent.we want to make no mistake that this one is the protection of our first amendment rights and therefore need this consideration. when you talk about black unemployment and why we're seeing such violence and to the hardest hit communities, much of black unemployment today is directly at the hands of nancy pelosi when she have the gavel and the congress, she increased minimum wage laws. when you increase minimum wage, you increase black unemployment. and when you increase black unemployment, you increase black crime.

>> i want to thank everyone for coming out this morning to attend our press conference.we are officially adjourning now, and we thank you. [applause] [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. and during the revolution, while in her mid 40's, she was considered an enemy by the british, who threatened to take her hostage. later, she would become our first first lady, at age 57. meet martha washington, in the first of our new weekly series, "first ladies -- influence and image." we will visit colonial williamsburg, mount vernon, valley forge, and philadelphia,

and you can be part of the conversation with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook posts. live on c-span. >> tomorrow, the national governors association winter meeting ends at 10:00 a.m. eastern, with discussions on employing people with disabilities, and the role of state governments in cybersecurity. at today's white house briefing , transportation secretary ray lahood warned that sequestration would result in major airport delays, and reduction of air traffic control staff. with the sequester's, the federal aviation administration will have to cut $600 million from its budget by furloughing employees and closing some air traffic control towers in smaller cities.

lawmakers have until march 1 before automatic cuts are expected to take effect. this is a little less than an hour. >> good morning. i remember all of you from roll call. [laughter]ask me all these dumb questions. i am here for you. we will say dumb answers. [laughter] >> i just want to say that it is my pleasure, and clearly yours, to have with me today the

secretary of transportation, ray lahood, who is here to speak with you about the impacts of sequester, if it comes to pass, on the american travel industry. and as we've talked about a lot, the indiscriminate, deep cuts will affect everyone, really, in america, and industries. and secretary lahood is here to discuss one aspect of that with you and to take some questions. and afterwards, i'll be here to take questions on other issues. i just want to remind you that we're on a slightly constrained time schedule. we have the president's meeting with national governors -- democratic governors, and then also the pool spray with the prime minister of japan. with that, i turn it over to secretary lahood. >> sequester will be a very -- will have a very serious impact on the transportation services that are critical to the

traveling public and to the nation's economy. at dot, we will need to cut nearly a billion dollars, which will affect dozens of our programs. over $600 million of these cuts will need to come from the federal aviation administration, the agency that controls and manages our nation's skies. as a result of these cuts, the vast majority of faa's nearly 47,000 employees will be furloughed for approximately one day per pay period until the end of the fiscal year, and in some cases it could be as many as two days. today we are sharing more details with our unions and with industry so they can start planning for serious impacts of sequester. here is what these automatic cuts are going to mean for the traveling public. obviously, as always, safety is

our top priority, and we will never allow the amount of air travel we can handle safely to take off and land, which means travelers should expect delays. flights to major cities like new york, chicago, and san francisco and others could experience delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we have fewer controllers on staff. delays in these major airports will ripple across the country. cuts to budgets mean preventative maintenance and quick repair of runway equipment might not be possible, which could lead to more delays. and once airlines see the potential impact of these furloughs, we expect that they will change their schedules and cancel flights. so we are beginning today discussions with our unions to likely close more than 100 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations per year.

and we're talking about places like boca raton, florida, joplin, missouri, hilton head, south carolina, and san marcos, texas. the list of the towers -- the list of potential towers that are to be closed, or elimination of midnight shifts, is posted on our website as i'm speaking now. so you can see the entire list there. we're also beginning discussions with unions to eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers across the country. the closures will impact services for commercial, general aviation, and military aircraft. this will delay travelers and delay the critical goods and services that communities across the country need. these are harmful cuts with real-world consequences that will cost jobs and hurt our economy. the president has put forward a solution to avoid these cuts. and as a former member of

congress of 14 years, i urge my former colleagues to address this issue when they get back next monday, and to work on a long-term, balanced solution to our deficit challenges. and with that, i'll be happy to answer some questions. >> mr. secretary, these cuts and these cutbacks that you're talking about, are these the type of things that the public will start seeing on march 2nd? or is this going to be a longer rollout? >> we think the rollout will take from march 1st to april 1st, and they'll begin to see the activity in the layoffs and the delays probably beginning around april 1st. >> are there any other ways to avoid the cuts other than those you have outlined? there are some republicans who say you could mitigate these effects by doing other things in your budget system. >> look, the sequester doesn't allow for moving money around. it just does not.

and it's very clear. and the idea that we can move money from one pot, say like aip, which is the airport improvement fund -- which in most places has a pretty good chunk of money -- sequester doesn't allow that. look, this is very painful for us because it involves our employees, but it's going to be very painful for the flying public. as a former member of congress, i heard complaints all the time from my constituents when their flights were delayed or when their flights were cancelled, and this is going to have an enormous impact. >> could you clarify why the flights will be delayed? is it a matter of mileage between flights? >> because we're going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce their ability to guide planes in and out of airports. >> so more distance between planes -- landing distance -- >> well, it's going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce their opportunity to guide the same number of planes that they would ordinarily do at full capacity.

>> how about tsa implications? >> tsa is under homeland security. we're not -- that's a different lane. >> your total budget at dot is, what, $70-some billion? >> $70 billion, in round numbers, yes -- 55,000 employees. >> so help the public understand -- a billion dollars cut. you've got a big budget. can't you find some other way to cut that without telling air traffic controllers to stay home? >> well, we're doing that. we're looking at every contract, and we're going -- our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what penalties we would have to pay as we begin to cut or adjust contracts. we're looking at everything possible, and everything possible that's legal, we will do. but this has to be a part of it. dot has 55,000 employees. the largest number of those employees are at the faa, and the largest number of those employees are controllers and

they're all over the country. there has to be some impact in order to save a billion dollars. a billion dollars is a lot of money. >> but let's be clear -- it's less than 2 percent of your budget. >> it's a lot of money, jonathan. and where i come from, which is central illinois, a billion dollars is a lot of money. and it's very difficult when you have this kind of -- the number of employees that we have guiding planes in and out of airports to do anything except look at everything, and that's what we've done. >> are you just basically throwing out whatever sounds like the most severe consequence in order to ratchet up pressure? and are you having discussions with some of your former colleagues up on the hill to warn them of what's coming? >> the answer is, yes, we are having discussions with members >> the answer is, yes, we are having discussions with members of congress.

we have briefed staff people on the respective committees -- commerce committee in the senate, t&i committee in the house. and they know the impact and they know why we're doing this. they know a lot about these numbers we're dealing with because we work with them on a regular basis. and the idea that we're just doing this to create some kind of a horrific scare tactic is nonsense. we are required to cut a billion dollars, and if more than half of our employees are at the faa, the faa -- there has to be some impact. that's the reason we're announcing what we're announcing. >> mr. secretary, what sort of impact will these delays have on the airline industries and their financials, specifically? do you have any forecast for what that will do? >> well, we're talking to the airline industry today -- a4a, which represents all of the airlines, we're talking to them. we'll be probably talking to individual airlines. we're making this announcement today, and obviously we have to work through with them what

impact this will have. but there's no question they're going to have to restrict some of the flights that they currently -- are on their books to fly in the next -- within the next 30 days. >> will they be required to compensate passengers for delays? >> you'll have to talk to them about that. >> i mean, isn't that part of u.s. law that they have to do that? where does this figure into that? >> you'll have to talk to the airlines about that. yes. >> just to be clear, have the airlines specifically said they will definitely have to choose >> you know, we just started to talk to the airlines today. they're hearing about this. we're on the phone -- our folks are on the phone with them right now. we're on the phone with the airlines, we're on the phone with our unions. we're sending an email to all of our employees so everybody gets the same information at the same time. >> so they have said it's a possibility this is one of the things that -- >> well, we believe that it's not possible to continue the same schedules with less people. >> and then on the issue of safety, how can you guarantee that safety standards will be

met if you're scaling back? >> because that's what we're in the business of. that's what we do every day. our people get up every day and think about safety, and we think about it in a way that maybe nobody else thinks about it -- certainly common, ordinary citizens. i've said many, many times people -- thousands of people today boarded planes, buses, got in their cars, and the thing they didn't think about was safety. we do. and we're not -- we will never take a back seat when it comes to safety. we just absolutely will not. and that's the reason, back to jonathan's question, we're looking at everything. we're not just looking at furlough days. we're looking at every contract. our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what impact it has for us to try and find some savings in those areas. >> mr. secretary, why is the alarm being raised now? why not three, four months ago? why now? >> because we're within 30 days

of sequester. i mean, sequester really begins march 1st, but we have a 30-day window here to prepare people. and we've been working with our colleagues here at the white house and omb for a number of months on what impact this is going to have. and now is the time to do it. >> mr. secretary -- >> jim. >> yesterday, at the airlines for america briefing, the airline lobby actually said that there would be no effect, that they suspected there would be no significant impact on the air travel system. where is the disconnect between what you're saying and what the airlines are saying? >> i don't think they have the information we're presenting to them today. i don't know what they used for that, jim. but it's -- i think when they see the kind of cutbacks that are going to be made at some of these towers, they're going to have no choice but to really look at the fact that there are going to be delays, and there are going to have to be some cutbacks on some of these flights. >> let me follow up on safety, if i could.

what is going to be the effect on faa inspectors? are you also going to furlough some of them that are doing the who are reviewing the safety of these planes? >> everything will be impacted in terms of the controllers and contracts. when it comes to our safety programs, there will be no compromise. and those are things that we're looking at, but we want to make sure that those people that are, for example, doing the work on the 787, doing the work on inspecting planes, no compromise when it comes to safety. >> mr. secretary -- thank you, sir. mr. secretary, as far as international carriers are concerned, are you in touch with international carriers, if international passengers are going to be affected from this? because whatever happens in washington, whole world is affected, people around the globe. >> yes, we'll be in touch with all of the airlines. >> mr. secretary, you said you've been talking with the

unions about this. are they going along wholeheartedly with your proposal? or are they -- >> we just started our talks today. our faa administrator, michael huerta, has been talking to paul rinaldi, the head of the controllers union. but the call today will be with the entire leadership of the controller's union. >> are you concerned that they could object to the kinds of cuts you are proposing? >> well, we'll find out. i mean, look, the discussions are beginning now. i'm sure that they've never been bashful about expressing their point of view. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, does this in any way affect amtrak all that much? >> no, sir. >> no. >> no, sir, it does not. yes. >> mr. secretary, we went through this rodeo once before two months ago, the last time we came to the sequester deadline. did any of these conversations happen at the end of december

last year with the unions and with the airlines? >> of course. when we thought that there was going to be a sequester, of course we -- we're in continual discussions with these folks. we have a great partnership with them. and the answer is yes, of course. bill. >> mr. secretary, if the sequester goes through and these cuts kick in, how quickly can you turn off the switch and put things back to normal? >> look, all of our planning and all of our discussions and all of our work are about getting to where we're at today, with this announcement, with our discussions, and we'll see where it takes us. and planning for a restart is -- we haven't had a lot of discussion about that at this point. >> is there any requirement under the sequester that once it kicks in it has to last three months or four months or five months? >> no, not that i know of. >> what are you telling republicans in congress, mr. secretary? >> that this is going to have a huge impact on their constituents. look, and i can tell you -- >> when you break it down politically for them, what are you saying? >> that your phones are going to start ringing off the hook when these people are delayed at airports, and their flights are

delayed 90 minutes, or their flights are cancelled, or their air tower is closed. look, you all know i was in congress 14 years. i represented central illinois, which included peoria and springfield, both with air towers. any time there was even a threat of a closing of an air tower in peoria/springfield, our phones started ringing off the hook from controllers, but also from people who use the airport. so it's not only the impact on the passengers, it's the impact that it has on airports, control towers, people who work there, airports. and their phones are going to start ringing. why does this have to happen? nobody likes a delay. nobody likes waiting in line. none of us do. if we can't get our hamburger within five minutes -- if we can't get on the plane within 30, 40, 50 minutes after going through, you know what happens.

they start calling their member of congress. >> but to jonathan's question, you're going to scrub everything to make sure the priority is safety and usability, right? >> number one is safety. always has been, always will be. we never take a back seat when it comes to safety. we will never compromise safety ever. never have and never will. yes, sir. >> do you agree with the administration's position that this is a manufactured crisis, one manufactured by your former house colleagues? >> i think republicans need to step up here. i served for 14 years. during those 14 years, i was -- 12 of those years i was in the majority party. speaker gingrich was the speaker. he worked with then-president bill clinton. we balanced the budget five of those fourteen years. it meant that there was compromise. this requires compromise. this requires republicans stepping forward with some ideas about how to keep essential services of government running at the level that people have been accustomed to. this is not rocket science.

this is people coming together the way that other congresses have done to solve big issues. i suggest that my former colleagues on the republican side go see the movie "lincoln," because in the movie "lincoln," it shows how hard it was back then to get things done. but what lincoln did is he gathered people around him the way that i believe president obama is doing by calling republicans, talking to them, trying to work with them. and when that happens, big things get solved. the fiscal cliff got solved because people started talking to one another. so this can happen again. yes, ma'am. >> yes, have your phones been ringing from members of the public? and if so, what are they saying?

>> i'm sorry have -- >> have your phones been ringing from members of the public yet? >> no, but look, this is the announcement today. we've been doing a lot of this background work, and so i have no doubt my phones will ring from members of congress -- why is my control tower being closed? >> mr. secretary, where were these warnings two weeks ago, a week ago? i mean, speaking of movie references, this might be called an acting performance, because you are -- you're going to be scaring the public today. this is going to be scaring the public about their travel plans. >> well, we'll see what the reaction of the public is. what i'm trying to do is to wake up members of the congress on the republican side to the idea that they need to come to the table, offer a proposal so that we don't have to have this kind of calamity in the air service in america. and we want to get it right, so we've spent the last few weeks putting all of this information

together so we do have it right. so that we are not just taking a meat axe to one part of faa, that we're looking at the full breadth of the entire agency. >> mr. secretary, you said that you want these guys to wake up. have you awakened them by using a phone? have you called any republicans recently? >> yes, i just said i've been talking to republicans and their staff on the t&i committee and on the senate commerce -- >> can you tell us who you spoke with and what the nature of those interactions were? and what are they saying to you in terms of their own leadership? >> i doubt if you really want a list of the members of congress i've been talking to, okay? but take -- >> how many? enumerate. >> a half a dozen. >> and what are they telling you about what they think about their own leadership? >> i didn't talk to them about their leadership. i talked to them about the impact on air travel and air traffic control towers. >> what was their reaction? >> it's not good. they get it. in the back. >> the republicans would say -- and they have been saying this that the democrats in the senate should act on two bills that they passed in the summertime.

why aren't you calling the democrats in the senate and saying, pick up -- act on the republican bills and avoid sequester that way? what's wrong with that approach? >> i've been working on trying to figure out how we're going to get to a billion dollars. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, in all the discussion about the sequester, you're the first cabinet secretary that's been brought into a white house briefing to talk about this for us recently. so, i mean, do you and the president think that the impatience of the american people at the airports is the strongest leverage point to press with the republicans? >> i would describe my presence here with one word -- republican. they're hoping that maybe i can influence some of the people in my own party. look, this is a big deal. it's a big deal because a lot of people -- common, ordinary citizens fly. a lot of people use airports. and this is going to have a real impact. >> the department of transportation is taking part of this hundred-city tour called the connecting your community to talk about proposals in the

president's state of the union address. will you end your participation in that tour as a way to cut some savings right now? sending dot employees out to -- >> well, i was supposed to be in orlando and south carolina today, so i guess i have ended it. >> is it not going to happen? is there going to be a bridge -- tom coburn is asking for an explanation of why it's being held in light of the sequester potential? the hundred-city tour. >> you'll have to ask jay about that. >> i'll take that one. >> mr. secretary, let's say -- i'm finally traveling to india in the next two weeks, should i be worried? [laughter] >> you're going to be delayed. [laughter] yes, ma'am. last one. >> you said you're telling republicans to come to the table. are you telling them to raise taxes? i mean, are you telling them to

>> no, i'm telling them to come to the table and start talking to democrats about how we solve this. they'll figure out the solution, just like they figured out the solution on the fiscal cliff. >> so you're not telling them that they shouldn't -- >> i have not told them the specifics about how to solve it. come together, talk to one another. figure it out. that's the way we've always done things around here. have a great weekend, everybody. >> i want to thank secretary lahood with whom it is always a pleasure to share this podium. [laughter] no, i mean that seriously. and he'll be missed by me and everyone else here at the white house. if i could just -- in answer to the question in the back, we'll just go straight to the issue here.

the way to avert sequester is to pass a bill that can be agreed to by democrats and republicans that either buys down the sequester or, when there was time to do this, that achieves the $4-trillion goal by reducing the deficit further along the lines of the big deal that president obama and speaker boehner were talking about during the fiscal cliff negotiations. there's the offer the president made is still on the table -- spending cuts, entitlement savings, and revenues through tax reform. in this process, if you accept the premise that for democrats it is hard to go along with spending cuts -- or harder to go along with spending cuts and hard to go along with entitlement savings, that they might prefer to do revenues over that. so the tough sell to democrats is to go along with spending cuts and entitlement savings, and that the tough sell, as we all know, because we hear it all the time, for republicans is to go along with revenue increases, and that leadership is represented in part, certainly in the discourse here in washington, by a willingness by the leaders of one party to convince their members to go along with tough choices.

and i would then ask you to look at the proposals that we put up, that i had on the screen here yesterday, the offer that we made to speaker boehner, the president's budget, the president's submission to the super committee, which was specifically designed to eliminate the sequester. and in every single one, he has put forward balance. he has put forward spending cuts and savings from entitlement reforms. and as all of you know who have covered washington, some of that savings is a hard sell to democrats. but this president has been leading on the issue. unfortunately, we have not seen any commensurate action by republican leaders. their answer always is -- spending cuts only, no revenues, entitlement savings only, no revenues, burden borne by seniors or faa employees or border security guards or children with disabilities, but not the wealthiest, not corporations who enjoy tax breaks, not oil and gas companies who get subsidies.

that is always their answer. so you can't -- it is hard to find a compromise solution with a side that says the only available solution from our view is if you come 100% to us. and that, unfortunately, has been the narrative that you have been dealing with -- and certainly we have been dealing with -- now for -- really since the beginning of 2011. the president supports the proposals that the senate democrats have put forward and the house democrats have put forward that would buy down the sequester and give congress time to work on a bigger deal to reach that $4-trillion target in deficit reduction. the president has signed into law, as you know, already $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction -- two-thirds of which is comprised of spending cuts and savings from entitlements. so only a third of that has been from revenues. we want balance. the american public wants balance.

there was, i think, a public poll that was published in usa today -- i don't see a representative from that fine newspaper here today -- but yesterday that i think cited 76% of the american people support a balanced approach to this challenge. something like 19% supported a "my way or the highway" spending cuts-only approach. yes. >> since we're a week away from the deadline, is it the white house expectation at this point that the sequester will take effect next friday? >> we remain hopeful that congress will act, that the proposals democrats have been working on in both houses will be taken up and passed, that republicans will -- having heard some of the information about what the impacts will be on real people out there, and the macro impact on the economy -- will come to the conclusion that it is better simply to do what they did in december and allow this manufactured deadline to be postponed so that they can get

back to the work of doing what secretary lahood was just talking about, which is coming together and finding a reasonable, bipartisan compromise, a balanced compromise, to complete this job of achieving $4 trillion-plus in deficit reduction over 10 years. >> but what are the realistic prospects of that happening over the next week? >> i've never done very well in vegas or atlantic city, so i'm not going to make odds for you. we obviously are discouraged by the line that republican leaders have taken, which is that the book is closed on revenue, despite the 76% of the american

people who believe that balance is the right approach, that the only way to do this is the way they propose, which is not supported, obviously, in the senate and not supported by the american people, and not supported by the president. but we remain hopeful, and we will continue to engage with congress. we will continue to make our case around the country about why we need to avoid the sequester, what the damage of that would be to the economy and to average folks out there who some of whom are working today but will not be working 30 days from now if the sequester takes effect. this is incredibly important. it's about the broader enterprise here that everyone is engaged in -- those who are elected and sent to washington and that is taking steps to try to improve our economy, help it grow, and help the middle class. this does not help the middle class. it does the opposite.

and it's bad policy, by design, so we should not let it take place. jackie. >> jay, could you tell us about what the president's message was to the democratic governors this morning about this subject? >> i confess i was in other meetings so i wasn't present. i know that the president intended to speak with governors about the issues that are of concern to them. and i think what we all know about governors is that the issues that are of concern to them tend to be issues that aren't broken down by party affiliation. and that's the need for actions to be taken that help job creation, the need for investments in infrastructure, issues involving implementation of the affordable care act, i'm sure, immigration reform -- many of the issues that we are discussing here in washington. but that's not a readout, that's

just my understanding of what those conversations were likely to look like. >> is he intending to talk to them about encouraging them to go public with their concerns about the real-world impact of this in their states? >> well, i don't think you get elected governor in any state in this country if you are not out there talking about the issues that affect your constituents. and i don't -- so i guess my answer to that is i don't think he would have to tell governors of either party to be concerned about it or to communicate with their constituents about it. i expect that that's going to happen across the country. and democrats and republicans are going to have to explain what implementation of the sequester will mean in terms of job loss, furloughs, reduced economic growth, closure of airport towers, or reduced hours for air traffic controllers at their airport. these are just a handful of the impacts that we would see if the sequester goes into effect. >> jay, the secretary said sequester doesn't allow for moving money around. is that completely true?

does omb have any discretion? do the agencies have any discretion? >> i can't remember if you were in the chair when i had danny werfel here to talk about this from omb about how the law dictates what must happen in terms of the cuts. and i think secretary lahood reflected the -- in layman's terms -- the facts, which is there is very little flexibility in terms of how to make those cuts happen. within that limited flexibility, secretary lahood made clear that he will -- he and i'm sure other secretaries are doing this -- are doing everything they can to deal with these cuts and absorb them, prepare for them in a way that allows them to achieve their mission. and in the case of the department of transportation and the faa, top priority is safety. so as he said at the top, that would mean -- because the faa is such a big chunk of the department of transportation and unavoidably would be affected by furloughs -- that you would have only the number of takeoffs and landings that the system could bear with a reduced staff.

and that means -- and still maintain the levels of safety that the faa does. so that means reducing the number of flights, or delaying flights, with all that means for travelers. >> and i wasn't just referring to the transportation, but broadly, the answer is that the flexibility is very limited? >> that's correct. and again, i would point you to the briefing that was done i believe last week in which danny werfel addressed this.

>> and just one follow-up. generally, can you give us any sort of a hint about what other plans you guys have for next week? we know the president is traveling on tuesday, but otherwise how you intend to keep pushing this message up until the friday deadline? >> well, i don't have any other events or travel to announce. he will be going to newport news, virginia next week, as you know, to highlight the negative consequences of sequester and how they will be felt in that town, in that state. the fact is we have a full agenda, but it is certainly going to be the case next week that sequester and the impending deadline will i think consume a lot of people's attention here both on this side of the podium and your side. and i think that our activities will include engaging, as they have in the past, engaging with congress, hoping that we can find resolution here, hoping we can find an agreement. we're not -- the smaller agreement, just as was the case at the end of last year, is not asking of either side, because

of its size, to make all of the hard decisions. a lot of that work would still be saved for completing the job of hitting the $4 trillion-plus target a broader deficit- reduction deal. but as the senate proposal shows and other proposals have shown, you can do this as they did in december, in a way that is balanced but should not be that difficult. so we're hoping -- we remain hopeful that that will happen. >> one of the interesting things that you're seeing in some of these polls -- and i know you mentioned some polling in your conversation with brendan buck, with the speaker's office last night -- >> good friend, brendan. [laughter] >> is that there's a large number -- >> i mean that seriously. >> there's a large percentage of americans who are unaware of what's going to happen with this sequester, don't even know what the sequester is, whether it should be called sequestration or sequester. >> we're all still struggling with that one, i think. >> why are these warnings, like secretary lahood's warnings, coming so late in the game? i mean we're hearing about faa

delays one week before the -- >> i refrained from interjecting because he's a cabinet secretary, but i wanted to say i wanted to leap to the podium and point that we put out, as mandated by law, a report on the implementation of sequester, i believe last september, because the deadline at that time was january 1st. and the fact is we have been talking about this and answering question, and making clear that the planning was in effect in the lead-up to the potential deadline at the end of last year. and it was only -- remember, we're now, what, seven weeks since the 1st of the year, so it was only -- it hadn't been that long since the last deadline passed, but it was pushed back by the fiscal cliff deal. there was a lot of concern, obviously, late last year, in fact, a great deal of concern on the part of republicans about the potential for sequester taking effect. they seem to have had a change of heart about that. but at the time there was great concern expressed by republicans about that. what was also the case is we

were engaged -- because of the other deadlines, the fiscal cliff, the fact that there was the potential that taxes would go up on middle-class americans around the country -- we were in engaged in negotiations with the speaker of the house in an effort to try to achieve a bigger deal that would have both dealt with averting those tax hikes and further deficit reduction. unfortunately, the speaker walked away from that deal. but the environment was different. now we're not seeing any flexibility from -- it was different then than it is now. we're not seeing much interest at this point from republican leaders in even engaging in a discussion about how we can move forward with a balanced package. the line they keep drawing in the sand is, i don't care what the public says, i don't care who is hurt by it, our position the republican position -- is cuts only, burden borne only by senior citizens, children with disabilities. >> is that a fair read of the substance of the conversations that went on between the

president and republican leaders? >> i'm not going to read out those conversations. and i think you've seen that the leaders themselves who have had those conversations with the president aren't reading them out. we continue to, as a broad matter -- not specific to any one conversation -- to make the case that compromise is available here, that compromise is represented by taking a balanced approach. i mean, again, it really is important to me -- you can't -- the sort of pox on both their houses, false equivalence business that a lot of -- some commentators engage in where everybody is to blame equally here for how we got to this problem because nobody will compromise, but it is just factually incorrect. again, going back to that basic premise that it's harder for democrats to go along with spending cuts and entitlement savings and harder for republicans to go with revenue increases -- so who has made the hard choices here? who has made the tough proposals? >> but to that point, democrats like to say republicans only

control 1/2 of 1/3 of government. so shouldn't they just have 1/2 of 1/3 of the blame? >> the fact of the matter is that we can't get anything done without a bill passing the house of representatives, and the democratic party and the president of the united states do not control the house of representatives. we are confident that there is in excess of a majority in the senate that would support the balanced approach that the president has put forward, that the senate democrats have put forward. and we know, because your polling outfits tell the public this, that the public supports the balanced approach that the president has put forward. we also know it's the best economic policy. i was asked yesterday, i think, why can't -- doesn't the president have some power to just make the sequester go away on his own? and, of course, he would enjoy having that power, but the law of the land does not give it to

him. jon. >> jay, even before we heard from secretary lahood, we've heard some dire warnings coming from the administration. just to tick through a few, we've heard about more wildfires, more workplace deaths, higher risk of terrorism, criminals set free. is there any exaggeration going on here? >> i think all of those things come from reduced numbers of people fighting fires, reduced numbers of people doing inspections of our food, reduced numbers of people engaging in air traffic control. i mean, those are just the facts, jon. >> no other way to squeeze 3% out of the federal budget? >> i think we had this colloquy yesterday. the fact of the matter is that you are talking about a 13% cut in our defense budget and 9% cut in our nondefense discretionary budget this year. and there is no way to do that, based on the way the law is written, without having hugely negative impacts on individuals and families. furloughs would have to happen. layoffs would have to happen. that is a fact.

and it's not just us saying this. you don't believe us, maybe you believe the cbo. maybe you believe macroeconomics advisers or moody's. they have projected fully a half a percentage point reduction in gdp growth. and you know, because you cover this stuff, what that means economically. they have projected three- quarters of a million people will lose their jobs if the sequester takes effect and stays in effect. those are real-world consequences. these are real people. it's not political leverage. it's a fact. and we're out there making clear that this is an important issue to deal with because of the real-world implications. the reason why the president continues to put forward and we made clear again on paper what we have been making clear all along, the president's very reasonable offer remains on the table because he wants to avoid this. let's just, again, go back to my

basic point. it is not an easy sell to democrats to go along as part of a big deal with superlative cpi. it is not an easy argument necessarily to get democrats to go along with the reforms that the president has put in place in his proposal on entitlement reforms or with the spending cuts. it was not easy to sign into law $1.1 trillion in spending cuts. but he has done it, and democrats have done it. and what we haven't seen from republicans is anything equivalent. and we're just looking for a negotiating partner here. we're just looking for somebody to meet us halfway. >> is this hundred-city tour going to be cancelled? >> you know what, i saw somebody a reporter sent me this right before i came out here. i haven't had a chance to ask anybody about it. but we'll get back to you on it. >> but this would be the kind of thing, right? i mean, you wouldn't -- specific cabinet members all around the country -- >> i appreciate that a republican member has sent this around. i just don't have an answer for it, but i'll look into it. >> but the broader question, jay, would be to prioritize those things out of a sequester matrix, wouldn't it? for this president to say, we

can do without those things? >> the sequester matrix, so i'm not sure what that means, but it sounds cool. >> you understand what i'm saying. the president would prioritize these things out of the budget and not label them a priority against meat and poultry inspections, against faa air traffic controllers, against wildfire fighters. i mean, wouldn't he? >> again, i would urge you to look at the law and look at what >> i have. >> the flexibility there is in the law, and it is extremely limited. and even if it weren't -- >> yes, it's extremely limited, but the dollars and cents can be applied at agency discretion. if there's a hundred-city tour, it can be decided -- >> i appreciate the talking point based on a letter that a republican just sent moments ago. i haven't seen it. i don't have an answer for it at this time, but i will look into it. you can find an individual thing and say that this could be cut and maybe it should be, whatever it is -- but it represents a drop in the bucket to an $85 billion cut, a 13% cut to our

defense budget, and a 9% cut to our nondefense discretionary budget this year, this fiscal year. this is not spread out over 10 years. >> i understand that. >> this is not something you can backload. this happens now and it affects real people. and, again, don't take our word for it. look at what republicans used to say about it until i guess some consultant told them to say something else. look at what cbo and macroeconomics advisers and moody's have been saying. these are just the facts of the matter. one of the reasons why we're here, one of the reasons why we had the fiscal cliff fight and why we're discussing this is that everybody recognizes that these kind of indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts aren't good for the economy, aren't good for our defense, and they're not the way to sensibly reduce our deficit. >> i understand that. i'm just saying this president, as all presidents before him, took pride in prioritizing. and i'm just asking, as a priority for the president, the signal to the agencies would be prioritize your core functions >> absolutely. >> over non-essential functions

like this or something like it. >> again, i appreciate on the item that you mentioned and i'm sure that somebody will get back to you with an answer on that. the fact of the matter is you just had a cabinet secretary with enormous responsibility for an agency that affects everybody who travels in our skies tell you exactly that -- that that's what he is doing on the instructions of the president. within the law, he's looking at every available mechanism to lessen the impact of these cuts on the core mission of the department of transportation, the core mission of faa. so i think the answer is to you, yes. >> this may be self-evident, but is it your position from the podium today to instruct or ask the senate democratic leadership to with all due speed next week pass their alternative to the sequester and send it to the house? >> we would absolutely like to see the senate take up and pass legislation that would avert the sequester in a balanced way, and the house to do that as well, yes. >> and within that context, it's

$85 billion over the next nine months remaining in our fiscal year. does the deal that the white house envisions have to be $85 billion, or would it be smaller than that? >> the buy-down -- >> would be $85 billion -- >> the buy-down could be -- look, it was two months on january 1st, december 31st -- it could be that. but the bill that has been put forward by democrats in the senate i believe takes it to the end of the year. the sequester, as you know, the $1.2 trillion is stretched over 10, yes. >> right, but that's over the next -- all those fiscal years. but just $85 billion is the contours of what you want, and you roughly have -- portion that half revenue and half spending cuts. so the federal budget could live with -- >> well, i would point -- whatever the ratio is in the bill, i would point you to the

president's overall approach to this, which has been two dollars in spending cuts to one in revenue. >> jay, we've heard over the last couple of years from secretary geithner, from lael brainard, from mike froman, their concerns that countries in the eurozone were cutting too much, too quickly. to what extent does the president's experience in watching that inform his philosophy going into these negotiations? >> obviously, every country has dealt with the global economic crisis that befell us in 2007, 2008 in different ways. we believe, and the president believes, that the approach that was taken here in washington was the right one, and that as a result -- even though we suffered a calamitous recession, the worst of our lifetimes that took millions and millions of jobs -- we have been able through hard work and tough

decisions, and the grit and determination of the american people, to come to a position where the economy has been growing steadily. and it has been creating jobs -- over 6 million private-sector jobs. that work is not done. so the focus that the president has had was one that prioritized in the beginning the need to stop the bleeding, the need to avert a depression. and the actions that he took with congress in 2009 are widely viewed to have done that. and then to, as things began to stabilize, to go about the business of getting our fiscal house in order in a reasonable, balanced, common-sense way. and we have been doing that. as you know, it hasn't always been pretty, but over the past year and a half the president has signed into law now $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, a significant portion of that has been spending cuts. but it's been done in a way that has allowed the economy to continue to grow and create jobs not fast enough, not enough jobs, but it's been positive growth and positive job creation. i mean, i think -- i don't have the graph i had yesterday here, today, but the one that showed

the dramatic decrease in the deficit in the last several years, the sharpest decrease in the deficit since world war ii. and then, what would happen based on our projections if the president's proposal to speaker boehner were implemented in terms of bringing that deficit down even further and stabilizing it below 3% of gdp. that's the approach we believe is right, because it's the best for sustained economic growth. >> to what extent was that, though, a powerful negative example for him? people's outlooks change from their experiences in the presidency. i have heard that it was a big spur for him to take this particular position. >> well, i don't want to characterize the president's thinking on what other countries have been doing. he's focused on what he believed was the right course for the united states, and believes that while we have significant work to do to continue to grow our economy and have it create jobs, that we made the right choices. and the results have borne that

out. again, very much like the fact that we need to continue to focus on growing our economy, expanding the middle class, helping people who aspire to the middle class enter the middle class. and that's why that's his number-one priority. it's been the focus of his state of the union address. and it's why the debate we're having over this crazy thing called sequester or sequestration is so important, because the last thing we should be doing in washington is throwing a wrench in an economy that has been moving in the right direction. >> jay, two questions. first, just one month ago, secretary clinton said that the u.s. opposes any unilateral action seeking to undermine japan's administration -- >> i'm sorry, who said that? >> secretary clinton.

>> hillary clinton is no longer secretary. >> yes, former secretary. >> oh, i see. >> yes, she said the u.s. will oppose any unilateral actions seeking to undermine japan's administration over diaoyu islands. and i just want to know, is that the firm position that the president will address? >> i haven't seen those comments. i would simply say that the president's meeting with the prime minister in just a little while here, and there will be a pool spray, and i think they both will have statements. so i don't want to get ahead of that. >> and also, on north korea. russia and china today -- they say they oppose any military intervention in north korea. what's the position of the white house? >> again, i would urge you to hear what the president has to say today. i think we got to go, because -- >> can i do just one quickly? >> yes, one more, kristen. >> can you comment on or confirm the reports that the united states is preparing to establish a drone base in northwest africa?

>> i think those reports are fairly old, but i have no comment on that. thanks. >> week ahead, sir? >> i do have a week ahead. >> old but no comment? >> well, i remember -- i don't know, is this a new report? there was a report that i -- >> well, in light of -- >> didn't comment on the other day or i had a comment on. i'm not sure this is a new report. >> do you have a timeframe on it? >> i'll have to get back to you, kristen. i'm not sure what our -- >> that you're aware of. >> sure. on sunday, the president and first lady will welcome the national governors association to the white house for the 2013 governors dinner. the vice president and dr. biden will also attend. on monday, the president and the vice president will deliver remarks to the national governors association in the state dining room. the first lady and dr. biden will also deliver remarks. on tuesday, the president will travel, as you know, to newport news shipbuilding, a division of huntington ingalls industries in newport news, virginia -- region of my forebears -- to highlight the devastating impact that the sequester will have on jobs and middle-class families if

congressional republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester by march 1st. in just seven days, a series of automatic cuts could go into effect that would severely affect companies like this one that depend on the defense industry and its workers. this company has a supplier base in all 50 states, many of which are small businesses that rely solely on newport news shipbuilding for their business. the president will return to washington, d.c. later in the day. on wednesday, the president will deliver remarks at the unveiling of a statue of rosa parks at the united states capitol. in the evening, the president will deliver remarks at the business council dinner here in washington, d.c. and on thursday and friday of next week, the president will attend meetings here at the white house. thank you all. >> jay, real quickly, have there been any furloughs in the white house? has the chief of staff ordered any furloughs? is your staff going to be affected? >> i took this question. as you know and has been reported, the eop is affected by the sequester. and i'm sure that the omb has been working on that as it has with every agency.

[captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal", jack markell will talk about the nga's meeting in washington this weekend. then the association of unmanned vehicles international on local and state regulation of drums. and harvard medical school professor george church will discuss proposals to map the human brain. that begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. during the revolution, while in her mid-40s, she was considered an enemy by the british who threatened to take her hostage.

later, she would become our nation's first first lady, at age 57. meet martha washington. we will visit some of the places that influenced her life, including colonial williamsburg, mount vernon, valley forge, and philadelphia. be part of the conversation about martha washington with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook post. last monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span. >> now, u.s. chamber of commerce tom donahue spoke at the manhattan institute about the federal budget, the economy, and immigration. his remarks are about one hour. >> it is my honor to introduce tom donahue, president of the u.s. chamber of commerce. [applause]

it was 1990 seven that tom became president and ceo of the u.s. chamber. over the past years, he built the chamber into an unparalleled lobbying powerhouse. it is more than duple -- more than quadrupled the budget. the lobbyists, policy experts, and communicators have helped secure business victories on capitol hill, the regulatory agencies, courts of law, and the court of public opinion and governments around the world. one of his great abilities is the knack to identify key issues well ahead of the curve. in an era of economic and fiscal challenges, he has aggressively advanced the american jobs and growth agenda. i plan to rebuild america's infrastructure, new regulations, protecting intellectual property, and reforming

entitlements and the tax system. the chamber has emerged as a major political force. as part of this bipartisan effort, millions of grassroots business advocates as well as the state and local chambers and industry associations mobilized in support of pro- business candidates. the manhattan institute has worked closely with the chamber over a number of years. we are glad that lisa was able to join us here today areas what i admire most about tom is how he combines a deep understanding of the issues, philosophy and courage as an advocate area did so many and washington failed under the pressure, tom refuses to stand down for that which he believes in. a classic interview question is, if you were stuck in a foxhole,

who would you want beside you? tom donahue would be the number one answer on many list sin washington. please join me in welcoming tom donahue. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for not reading the obituary and your very thoughtful hyperbole. allow me to make one adjustment and what his said. where it says tom donahue, 450 of the smartest and most courageous and serious super people that have ever been in this business, we have done it together. i will talk for a little while and then we will do some q&a. i will leave a good amount of time for that. so start thinking about what you would like to ask.

i operate under a simple system. i either know the answer, or i will make it up. most of the time i am close to write. we will give it a go. thank you for inviting me. thank you for the valuable, collaborative relationship with the organization putting in studies and information together with advocacy. we appreciate that. no one single person has done more to make this institution the valuable place it is then you have. it is different and very much the same. when you put it together, it is a strong team. the analysis and market oriented solutions offered by the institute i needed today more than ever. this is especially true as our

policymakers in washington neglect some of the fundamental realities. you have heard the old quip that a gaffe in washington is when someone accidentally tells the truth. it is one thing to differ over philosophical direction and approach. that is democracy. the routine neglect of basic facts and the fundamental reality is something we are seeing more and more at every level of government in politics and in the governance. it should concern all of us. that is why the manhattan institute is so important. you have a philosophical rudder. your research and your conclusion are grounded in facts. they stand up to the test of reason and sound argument. keep doing what you are doing. washington could use a strong dose of reality. let me give you a few examples. first, you cannot do much of anything without economic

growth. you cannot create growth and jobs without the private sector. here is another reality -- democracy is destiny. demographics is destiny. there are plenty of folks in washington who are acting like they have never heard this before. they refuse to acknowledge any changes in entitlements to reflect longer life expectancies and earlier retirements and long retirees and a shortage of native-born americans to run our economy. those are facts. there is another reality that most people know is true, but they want to wish it away. that is that there is no such thing as a national economy anymore. that is the truth. at least not like we once knew it.

we are all part of a global economy and a very competitive one at that. policies must reflect this reality. any rational analysis of the facts and our history will tell us that of all the things that we believe that make america special, the one that stands out above all others and explains our success and our leadership is the value of economic freedom. the right to give it a go. the right to take a risk and be rewarded for success. the right to take a risk and to fail and to get up off the floor and do it again. the dream of standing on your own two feet. seizing an opportunity and building a self-sufficient system through hard work and personal responsibility. it is something we must reserve for future generations. why would we want to move by design or by accident to a system where we turn over more

of our freedom and responsibility to the central government? we can find a way to help the truly disadvantaged without squandering the greatest gift and our greatest strength -- our personal liberty and our self- reliance. at the chamber, the agenda is fashioned around these realities. we call it american jobs and growth agenda. it is more than that. it is an agenda that focuses on our national and our global competitiveness and our need to be fiscally responsible. it is an agenda that understands how vital our economic and other

freedoms are to our success, prosperity, and freedom. permit me to tell you a little more about that. let's talk first about growth. growth will not solve all of our problems, but we cannot solve any of them without economic wrote. so many policymakers in washington fail to understand the power of growth or where it comes from. economic growth is the cause that provides opportunity for the young, the security for the old, and allows families to pursue their idea of the american dream. what a powerful force it can be.

for example, if the economy grew at 4%, instead of a meager 2% that we have right now, we could create 10 million additional jobs over the next decade. we could return the economy to full employment with no rising government spending. with 4% growth, the government would collect more than $3 trillion in additional revenues over the coming decade. we would see a 30% reduction in the 10 year budget deficit. that means something like $7 trillion would still be added to the deficit. here is another reality. household income would increase significantly. 3 million people would rise out of poverty. charitable giving would increase. here is another reality -- without growth, we cannot get those jobs. why isn't growth the number one

story in washington? the president has made jobs and growth a priority from time to time when it should be the major priority. many members of congress believe jobs and growth are the byproduct of government spending. if that were true, we would be living in paradise. growth comes from a robust, private sector that is allowed to innovate and rewarded and punished for success. at the chamber, our priority for 2013 remains strong. we want to compete and win around the world.

the big question is -- how do we get there? first, attract global talent. we will not have sustained growth in jobs without attracting the best and the brightest and figuring out a way to get them here and keep them here. this is the one area where washington appears to be finally accepting the reality that a) we cannot deport people and it would tear apart families in a way that is unacceptable to our belief system. we are a nation of immigrants. our immigration system is broken.

it is not serving the interest of our economy, businesses, or society. we need a stronger economy and a broader tax base. the chamber has been advocating for immigration reform for years. this year might be the best chance to make it work. we believe immigration reform must have at least four opponent. -- components. it must secure the borders. we have made progress, but we have more to do. we must have employment-based visa row grounds that would allow businesses to use

immigrant labor. 10,000 people in america retire everyday, seven days a week. we have got to be able to attract people at both ends of the scale. immigration reform must have a reliable, national employee verification system and not a system that is out to punish people. finally, it must provide a path out of the shadows. for the 11 million undocumented workers who are living in the united states. to succeed in a competitive and global economy, we have to remain an open and welcoming society.10,000 people in americe everyday, seven days a week. we have got to be able to attract people at both ends of the scale. immigration reform must have a reliable, national employee verification system and not a systemhat is out to punish people. finally, it must provide a path out of the shadows. for the 11 million undocumented workers who are living in the united states.

to succeed in a competitive and global economy, we have to remain an open and welcoming society. we have all kinds of committees at the commerce that decide on policies. my mother-in-law came to the united states at 11 years of age to join her mother who had another family and my father-in- law came at about the same to join an entrepreneur. they took the risk to come here. she was one of the smartest people i have ever known with four years of education. this country has attracted people like that forever. if you turn them away, you'll wish you did not. i will say one thing -- you can

look in the newspaper today and tomorrow and probably sunday and you'll find out that the chamber and a couple of other unions have come to an agreement on most of this. it does not surprise me. union numbers have gone down. they have an idea that they have people who work here that might have a chance to make their business grow. if they do not get them, here is wh happens -- if you do not get work on the high end and you do not get workers on the low end, you send your work to where the workers are. this is not compensated. we have got to responsibly develop our extraordinary, natural resources.

we have more oil, gas," than any other country i would've the largest single national -- gas then any other country. we can generate government revenues to tackle the fiscal problem. we can boost manufacturing and exports. it will duce our reliance on foreign imports. all over europe, people are paying eight dollars per gallon of gas. all over the world, chemical companies that let the united states to get their seed corn, which is natural gas, are coming back here. they can get at a cheap price

and they are getting out of the middle east. what a great opportunity for us. we can boost manufacturing and have a stable supply of domestic energy. we can reduce our reance on foreign imports. some are shaky. we can put a hell of a lot of people to work. in the last two, we put many to work fracking gas and oil. we have been doing it for 69 years. the president hailed the benefit of american energy and crude, gas, and oil. but he did not say is that these sectors have thrived in spite of the federal government and not because of it.

the surge in unconventional oil and gas is made possible industry and the development -- if the government wants to help and not hurt, he can start by opening up new plants -- ey cantart by opening up new plants. the government owns about 60% of our land mass. no problem, but let's open it up. the government can open a predict it will and their regutory environment. there are on and on lawsuits all about trying to hand her to one political interest group.

there are roadblocks. everywhere i go home are we going to get the pipeline? -- everywhere i go, are we going to get the pipeline? when we left the market, we got a shale boom. we can take full advantage of our energy opportunity from all sources, from all methods of getting it in the public and -- of getting it if t public and private sectors work together. it is time for greater global engagement durin. the majority the majority of people we want to sell to live around the world. president obama called for swift completion of the

transpacific pipeline -- not pipeline, partnership. he announced the united states was ready to begin negotiations with europe on a u.s.-eu trade ownership. we could not agree more. let's hurry up and put american business to work. let's get these deals done. by the way, it is not just about asia. it includes all the coasts of the united states and canada and america. it is fascinating. need to get this going and move that european deal. the working group is about to put out a report. i think it will probably sustain the best teams we can think about. let me give you this in a minute.

europe is in a slow economy. europe is our largest export partner. europe is china's largest export your. china is our fastest growing export partner. if europe goes into the can, the whole triangle goes inhe can. that is bad idea. this would be huge on both sides of the pond. there are a lot of big trade agreements that have been talked about or a long time. these would put cash on the table right now. it is important that we welcome global investment. we want people to bring their cash here. come here and invest or come here and visit. the terrorism is a great way --

tourism is a great way. we like that. st people do not understand how many jobs that creates. millions of jobs. we need to remove regulatory barriers and stem that tide of the huge regulatory tsunami that is being planned for the next war years. -- four years. you remember we all went to school. we study there were three parts of government -- administrative part, the legislative part, and the judicial part. i'm racking my brain. hell, i do not remember anything about the regulatory part. we better do something. our economy thrives when the

hand of government is relatively light and giving entrepreneurs the freedom to innovate and businesses the confidence to invest. a flood of regulations are coming down the pipeline. it is staggering. the new rules and the mandate of the healthcare law could drive costs through the roof and suppress hiring investments. at that healthcare was not going to cost us anymore? then the dodd frank reform law mandates more regulations a. ready leaders have only finalized about a third of them -- regulators have only finalized about ahird of them. the new ozone regulation that they are just a getting through will cost $90 billion. we will run out by the rate they

are going. there are 4000 regulations every year. is that really necessary? we know we need government. we just need to restore balance -- common sense. we need to bring more accountability to our system. we need to make sure that the costs do not outweigh the benefits and that the roleules based on demonstrated need and fax. -- facts. in the government oversteps its bounds and tramples the rights of business is our individuals, we will use the justice system. we need to stop all of these ridiculous lawsuits around the country. we have another group.

we believe in balance. their suits are ridiculous and hours are necessary. [laughter] -- ours are necessary. [laughter] inaction. about it is the most inexcusable. government spending levels are unsustainable. you cannot keep it up the way we are going. discretionary, defense, and entitlement spending has to be bent down a little. we do not have to get rid of the defense department or medicare, but we have got to find ways on the parameter of fixing these issues. we need more revenue, but raising taxes cannot, close to fulfilling that gap.

i mean, just think about it. you cannot do it the way the are trying to do it. the richest 10% pay 55% of the .axes coul and the french have never recovered. did i say that was c-span on? oh, what the heck. [laughter] [applause] you could confiscate the earnings of couples making more than $1 million a year and still not come anywhere close to solving the deficit problem. those that claim that higher taxes can eliminate the deficit or that entitlement programs do not add to our debt either do not understand arithmetic come up are, or living in fantasyland.

the day we started medicare we were borrowing to pay it off. it is getting eager and bigger all the time. our growing debt burden will crush the next iteration of americans if we do not do something about it. on this issue, the first step is that we need to addss the leadership that this it. -- a leadership deficit. [applause] we need to close the gap between rhetoric and reality. we promise far more than we can deliver. because of choices, many leaders that both -- of both parties is unstable. bottom line -- you cannot solve the crisis without serious spending restraint.

that requires us taddress entitlements first, second, and third. there are vital programs that need to be revised to meet the needs of today's population and match the reality of our changing demographic. we're not talking about cuts in absolute terms. it will continue to grow. we must slow the rate of increase by making reasonable adjustments over a number of years. we will not get in the near future a comprehensive tax reform. our current tax system is antiquated and complicated and uncompetitive. we have made so many commitments in the last set of legislation before the end of the year. i do not thi we can get a comprehensive deal.

a lot of people will criticize me for that, but let's talk about the facts. the right kind of tax reform that accelerates jobs with criers morrevenue -- requires more revenue growth. let me conclude, now is the most thrilling time you'll ever live in. this is the most interesting agenda we have ever faced. does it lend itself to the sensational entertaining animated german coverage? no. -- and media coverage? no. it's bong. but it is real and it is based on fact. it faces up to the challenges that we face we need a greater recognition

and respect for the facts in this country. we can have different philosophies and approaches to solving problems, but we will not get very far if we do not come close to agreeing on the facts. do youemember that great guy from new york? patrick moynihan? he said everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact. we must deal with reality or reality will deal with us. it will win out every time. the best way to do so is to embrace our founding principles. abraham lincoln once wrote those princies are applicable to all men at all times. i thought i would do that

because lincoln is pretty big right now in the movies. to preserve economic freedoms, we have to defend principles and not change them. we must defend against an ever growing and all-powerful but a government that promotes dependency, erodes personal responsibility, and rules the people instead of the people ruling the government. we must defend against the yoke of a government regulation system that strangle's entrepreneurship, innovation, and the fundamental building block of earned success. there can be no liberty or prosperity without peace and

security. more than that, we need to go on the offensive. we need to be the focal and aggressive accidents -- vocal and aggressive advocates. for market-based solutions rooted in the reality that it will help reignite the economy that put us where we were and put us back on the path to prosperity. the stark reality of the leadership deficit in washington is that one cannot afford to ignore. in fact, this is a call to leadership. it is a leadership that is unafraid to point out the realities and offers sensible, workable solutions that might involve short-term paying for

long-term gain. we need a national conversation over the tough choices that should be made without demeaning people who have a view that might be different than ours. doing so requires us to tell people things they do not want to hear. many leaders in washington do so, so we must. this is our call toeadership, and one the chamber willingly answers with our own agenda for growth reform and freedom and talk about all over the world. i must underscore the need for common sense dialogue. we must draw from the same view of reality and the same set of facts. then we can fight like hell for our positions.

even gridlock in the ok on occasion, but we must be bound together a reason and facts and begin again our leadership in this important regard. we must do thisecause america needs us. our country needs it. it will pay a horrific advice if we do not. thank you r inviting me in and your kind attention and all to do in this organization to press people to see reality, to see the facts, and real solutions. i look forward to hearing your thoughts and what you have to say. i even -- -- even if i know the answer or i will try hard to make it up. [applause]

>> just a reminder -- c-span is here. once he picks you, please wait for the microphone to reach you so our tv audience can hear your question as well. >> i will start right there. here comes the mic. we will play a little game. you have to tell me what your name is an sort of who you are so i can know what you really need. [laughter] >> i hope that you will take that i meawhat i say. >> good goo. >> with your reference to the lincoln movie, it is unanimous that you deserve the academy award for setting out the facts and appropriate objective shou. i went to bring it down to something that troubles me. we had an election not long ago that the public heard the

differces between two candidates. one that voiced mostly your views lost. they do not want to repeat romney's mistake of the 47%. there are many people who live off the government and its various revenues that it provides. how is a practical matter in this reality. are we going to convince the american public that they should vote against the hand that feeds them and vote for the stronger future that you speak of? >> you gave me the quick invitation to make a second real quick speech, but look. we do not do presidential

politics, but we follow it closely just as we do with the house and the senate. that was the toughest, best run that has ever been run. i was in florida over the weekend. second, i would call to mind that after the election, they went and a -- they went out and did a survey. no matter how you voted, which of the candidates was better suited to deal with economic problems? romney won by about 80 something percent. always better to deal with global challenges? romney by about 70%. which candidate was better to deal with trade andnvestment?

romney by a huge percentage. which candidate understood me and my problems and will help me more than the other? obama with 89% or something. we know where we need to go. we know there arfundamental issues that we have to fix. people think those guys can fix them, but these guys will help me. the second s of things i would say, we did very well in elections in the house. the chamber did. the state attorney general -- we got clobbered in the senate. there are two sets of issues. we got some of the wrong candidates and some are financed to get in by the democrats. great story.